[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 146 (Tuesday, September 19, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H9153-H9220]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              CAREERS ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). Pursuant to House resolution 222 
and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 1617.

                             {time}   1217


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
1617) to consolidate and reform work force development and literacy 
programs, and for other purposes with Mr. McInnis in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] will 
be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Clay] will be recognized for 30 minutes. 

[[Page H9154]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], who has been very 
active in helping put this bill together.
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
legislation, and I want to congratulate both the chairman, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], and the subcommittee 
chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon] for their valiant 
and intelligent work on this issue.
  Let me begin by stating my strong support for H.R. 1617, the CAREERS 
Act, and H.R. 1720, the Privatization Act, which has been combined with 
H.R. 1617 for floor consideration. In particular, I would like to 
congratulate Chairman Goodling and Subcommittee Chairman McKeon for all 
of the hard work that they put into the CAREERS Act. Through their 
efforts, they were able to strike a necessary balance between the block 
grant approach and the need to ensure that the particular job training 
and vocational education opportunities of eligible groups are 
protected.
  However, we should not, as some Members suggest, give the States one 
lump block grant with no strings. As I have said from the outset of 
setting forth the block grant approach, this is not revenue-sharing, 
and there must be some measure of Federal accountability, oversight and 
monitoring. We are not sharing revenue with the States which means that 
we are not writing blank checks to the Governors so that they or the 
mayors can set up personal slush funds.
  It is for this reason that, as a member of both the subcommittee and 
full committee, I joined Mr. Riggs in offering a critical standards and 
accountability amendment which helps to make sure that those 
individuals participating in programs under this bill receive the 
necessary education, skills and training to succeed in today's ever-
changing job market.
  The Riggs-Roukema amendment which passed during markup attempts to 
achieve some uniformity in the performance measures of the workforce 
development and delivery system. Under this amendment, the Secretaries 
of Labor and Education work with the Governors and representatives from 
business, industry, education, service, providers, and employees to 
devise challenging performance indicators that build on the statewide 
standard systems already contained in the bill. So, in a sense, just as 
this legislation creates collaborative processes at the state and local 
level, it will now also be done at the national level.
  In order to help ensure that the States are attempting to meet these 
challenging performance indicators, the Governors must also report to 
the Secretaries of Labor and Education on how successful the local 
workforce development boards have been in meeting State goals. And, 
this gives the appropriate Secretary the opportunity to compare how 
well the state standards have met these challenge levels as well as to 
offer recommendations to the states on how to better attain them.
  Last, this amendment includes essential withholding of funds language 
to give States an incentive to achieve the State performance goals 
contained in the bill. This language is consistent with language 
included in the recently House passed welfare bill which allowed the 
Secretary to withhold up to 5 percent of AFDC grant funds from States 
that did not meet minimum job participation requirements. The Riggs-
Roukema language would function similarly by allowing the Secretaries 
of Labor and Education to withhold up to 5 percent of grant funds from 
States who show poor performance results.
  A second area in which this bill has significantly strengthened our 
current job training system is through the increased participation of 
business. Through the collaborative process, business plays a much 
greater role in helping the Governor devise a State work force 
development and literacy plan. By designating local work force 
development areas within which local work force development boards 
function to serve the needs of that area, this legislation gives 
communities the opportunity to better serve their local economy needs. 
And, who knows what types of training and vocational education are 
needed to fill jobs better than business and industry.
  By combining business and industry representatives with 
representatives of the disabled community, community-based 
organizations, and employees on the local work force development 
boards, we help to make sure that those outside of the business 
community have an important say in the types of training and vocational 
education eventually provided. But, by making business owners, CEO's, 
and trade association representatives the majority of these boards, we 
are saying that, contrary to what Secretary Reich says, getting 
training does not assure a person of a job. Therefore, it is imperative 
that job training and vocational education be tailored to job 
opportunities in surrounding economies, while also providing those 
participants with the skills needed to compete for better jobs in the 
future.
  With respect to H.R. 1720, the Privatization Act, our committee has 
made some important changes, such as privatizing Sallie Mae and Connie 
Lee, and repealing numerous higher education programs that were either 
previously unauthorized or recommended for termination by the 
President. However, I would like to mention one area of concern, and 
that is the repeal of SPRE's [State Postsecondary Review Entities].
  Back when we wrote the 1992 higher education amendments, Congress 
enacted a range of measures designed to ensure the integrity of our 
title IV program and weed out rampant fraud and abuse in the title IV 
student loan program. The creation of SPRE's was one such reform which 
gave State units oversight and review ability of State institutions 
participating in the title IV program.
  Some argue that, under the 1992 provisions, the Department of 
Education already has the means to investigate eligible institutions 
and detect fraud and abuse. And, therefore, funding State regulators is 
wasteful and duplicative. However, having been closely involved in the 
writing of the 1992 amendments, and knowing full well the extent of 
abuse in the title IV program, I believe that if a SPRE trigger 
uncovers that schools which are supposed to be providing quality 
educational programs are mismanaging Federal student aid dollars, then 
they are worth having.
  But, since SPRE's are no longer authorized or funded, it is even more 
important that we in no way relax other critical 1992 amendments such 
as the 85/15 rule and the 3-year 25 percent cohort default rate rule. 
These reforms have succeeded in ending risk-free Federal subsidies for 
those who promise students a good education that leads to a good job 
and then fail to deliver on that promise at the expense of both 
students and the American taxpayer. Any attempt to relax these or other 
similar reforms would only be an incentive for schools to go back to 
the days of old when they got away with major scams. They took in the 
students, gave them no education that could lead to jobs, then they 
stuck the taxpayers with the default bills.
  In closing, let me again express my strong support for both H.R. 1617 
and H.R. 1720. And, let me further take this opportunity to thank 
committee staff for the tremendous work they put into both bills, but 
particularly the CAREERS Act and the months of negotiating that its 
drafting involved. The CAREERS Act makes sure that youths and adults 
receive the training and education that they need so that they are able 
to contribute to the work force 10 years from now, and not just in the 
immediate future.
  Once again, I congratulate Chairman Goodling and Chairman McKeon for 
putting together job-training legislation that will help to create 
better and more secure job opportunities for American families and take 
us into the 21st century better prepared to compete in the global 
market.
  I urge my colleagues to support its passage.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Boehner], one of our leaders.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, we have today before us the 
CAREERS bill, and I would like to congratulate my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle who have worked diligently this year in order to put 
this bill together.
  As my colleagues know, last November, when the American people 
decided that they would change Congress, they decided that government 
in Washington was too large, too expensive, too bureaucratic, and they 
wanted it straightened out and cleaned up. One of the issues that we 
have talked about on our side of the aisle for the last couple of years 
is the issue of job training and job retraining. The fact is that there 
are 161 job training/retraining programs run by the Federal Government 
around the country, well-meaning, well-intentioned, trying to do the 
right thing, but I have got to say I think we have lost our focus, and 
what the committee is brining before us today is a bill that does 
provide focus. It moves these programs back to the States where they 
can be run much more efficiently and more effectively than what we can 
do here in Washington; and, second, it does bring focus by moving the 
money into four large block grants for the States to use.
  So, Mr. Chairman, this is a giant step in the right direction. It 
takes the money that the taxpayers have provided, some $25 billion, and 
puts focus in it, trying to help those in need in 

[[Page H9155]]
our country that need job training, people who need retraining as their 
jobs are eliminated, to help maintain their ability to be productive 
members of our work force, and so, as we look at trying to improve our 
work force and get our work force ready for the 21st century, this bill 
could not be any more timely, and I congratulate the chairman of the 
committee and the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. CLAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my views on H.R. 1617, 
the CAREERS Act. I am cautiously optimistic that we can still produce 
an acceptable, truly bipartisan bill.
  Most committee Democrats supported the reported bill because we 
agreed that the 80 existing training and education programs should be 
consolidated. We agreed that a streamlined and coordinated work force 
development system would be good for the country and good for working 
men and women. But by no stretch of the imagination were we completely 
satisfied with the bill. It was moving in the right direction, however. 
In addition, committee Democrats wanted to show our support for the 
bipartisan process by which the bill had been developed, by supporting 
the bill--with the important caveat that a number of serious concerns 
remained and needed to be addressed.

  We thought we had a deal and a commitment from our Republican 
colleagues to try to resolve our differences when several Republican 
Governors and Representatives of the ultra conservative eagle forum 
paid a visit on our counterparts on the other side. They threatened to 
oppose the bill if their objections were not addressed, and many of the 
changes made in the bill to accommodate these groups are unacceptable 
to committee Democrats.
  Although, Mr. Chairman, we are dismayed by this series of events, we 
continue to believe that improvements can be made here on the floor. I 
would now like to outline the major Democratic objections to this 
legislation:
  First, major changes have to be made to the vocational rehabilitation 
provisions in title V. This title threatens to undermine our existing 
State vocational rehabilitation system. Democrats will be hard pressed 
to support the dismantling of the service delivery system for those 
citizens most in need of assistance.
  Second, at the request of Republican Governors the, committee dropped 
a provision in the reported bill that provided a dedicated stream of 
funding for programs that serve youth who are in school and programs 
that reach out-of-school youth. Under this change Governors could 
transfer funds for youth programs to adult programs. This is a serious 
flaw that should be corrected.
  The reported bill was changed again to include a provision that 
allows Governors to use future year program funds to pay back funds 
which have been misused in prior years. I call this the oops provision. 
If a State program is caught misusing program funds, all a Governor has 
to do is say oops and wait until next year's Federal funds come in to 
pay back the Federal Government. I guess this is what some people call 
efficiency.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill does not contain a smooth transition from the 
school-to-work program to the New CAREERS Act. Without it, the bill 
could lead to a significant disruption in the existing job training 
network.
  Finally, the bill's authorization level is inadequate to create the 
kind of service delivery system envisioned by this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, the Members of this side of the aisle will be offering 
amendments to improve this bill. I urge my colleagues to support them. 
We have the opportunity to create a more effective education, 
employment and rehabilitation system. Working men and women deserve 
nothing less.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, it has been a long time coming, but all good things 
take a lot of time, I suppose. There are many people, and I do not want 
to start saying who because I will surely miss someone who worked 
probably in some instances for 2 years to put this legislation 
together. I do want to call to my colleagues' attention those on our 
side and the other side particularly who have been out in front: The 
gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon], the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Cunningham], the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay], and the 
gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams], who have been moving this bill 
in the right direction, and others even before we got to this point 
this particular year. It has gotten the respect, I believe, of the 
minority, the majority, and the White House, so we finally bring 
something to the floor that more people agree that we are moving in the 
right direction.
  I do want to point out that we are constantly working to try to 
improve the bill, and we will continue to do that as we move to 
conference. it is imperative that we have a bill on the House side 
because, if we do not and the other side puts it on their welfare 
reform bill, then we will go to conference with nothing and be pretty 
much at their mercy.
  Basically what we are pointing out is that we take those 150 
programs, and every speaker will probably have a different number, but 
however many, that at least 90 of them that have been appropriated, and 
we put them into the four blocks; we have the adult consolidation 
grant, we have the youth consolidation grant, we have the vocational 
rehabilitation consolidation grant, and we have the adult education and 
literacy consolidated grant.
  I just want to point out again, as I tried to do in the Committee on 
Rules, that we have tried to deal with some of the concerns that people 
have. We want to be very, very careful in dealing with the vocational 
rehabilitation part because there is a split. We have those State 
directors who are constantly indicating that they do not want any 
change, they want everything to be as it presently is, and 
unfortunately they have done a disservice to people in the disability 
community because they tried to stir them up and say, ``Boy, you are 
going to lose everything,'' whereas on the other hand the disability 
community is telling us, ``Don't let us stick with no competition again 
on the State level because we're going to be stepsisters all other 
again. We are not very happy that 45 percent of their money is used for 
administration and counseling.'' That does not leave too much to 
actually see about training, educating, and getting them, above all, 
into the work force where there are meaningful jobs. So I repeat again 
one of the letters that I received from ARC, the Association for 
Retarded Citizens of the United States, and I quote:

       To delink the vocational rehabilitation system from this 
     new system in CAREERS will only serve to isolate the VR 
     system and people with mental retardation from the employers. 
     No one would gain except those professionals in the VR system 
     whose sole agenda is to protect turf. We do not think that is 
     what reform is all about.

  Mr. Chairman, I do not think I could have said it better myself. Some 
have complained that this bill could lead to mandatory Federal 
tracking. I am sure that the way the bill is written that would be an 
impossibility. They used to say during the cold war that we looked 
under our bed every night because there may be a Communist under there. 
For some reason or an other I think people are looking on every page 
and somehow deciding that there may be a Communist on that page. I will 
assure my colleagues returning the power to local and State 
governments, I thought that is what most people were all about, trying 
to make sure that they improved the programs.

                              {time}  1230

  We do not hand them money and say go do your own thing. We have 
things that we expect them to do, but, above all, we expect them to 
improve the job training programs and the education programs that are 
out there so that we will be competitive in the 21st century.
  We are not talking about the Loganville competing with Jacobus. 
Members probably do not know where those two great towns are. We are 
talking about the United States competing in a global market, so we 
have to make the changes.
  Mr. Chairman, we have to keep in mind that we will send $37 billion 
in 1996 for the 25 percent who will get a 4-year college degree. For 
those who are trying to get 4-year college degree and those that will--
$37 billion. All we ask here is $2.3 billion for the 75 percent 

[[Page H9156]]
who will never receive a 4-year college degree but who will be an 
important part of our constituency if we are going to be competitive.
  Mr. Chairman, it has been a long time coming, but today we are 
finally considering legislation which represents significant reform of 
this country's job training and work force preparation programs. The 
CAREERS Act consolidates and reforms over 150 existing education, job 
training, and employment assistance programs into 4 consolidation 
grants to States and local communities--creating an efficient, market-
driven, and customer-focused work force development system in the 
United States. The bill espouses conservative principles throughout, 
and everyone from the Republican Governors' Association, the National 
Association of Counties and other organizations representing local 
government, to the business community, and others, support its passage.
  I want to take a moment to call to the attention of the Congress, the 
efforts of the chairmen of the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education, 
Training, and Lifelong Learning, and of the Subcommittee on Early 
Childhood, Youth, and Families, the gentlemen from California, Mr. 
McKeon and Mr. Cunningham, whose tireless efforts have resulted in 
consideration of this reform legislation today. Your dedication to this 
important issue is admired. We all appreciate your leadership in this 
area and I thank you for all of your work.
  Before I summarize our legislation, and give a bit of an historical 
perspective on the issue of job training reform, let me say a few 
things about some of the criticisms that you may hear throughout the 
course of today's debate. I want to take these criticisms head on, and 
set the record straight.
  First, let's start with vocational rehabilitation. There are some who 
believe that we should maintain the status quo; in other words, keep 
the current overly bureaucratic system that fails to place more than 
two-thirds of the disabled people it serves in meaningful jobs. No 
doubt, many Members have heard from interested parties on this issue 
the past few days, but I ask you to keep in mind who you are hearing 
from for the most part: the bureaucrats who provide these services.
  Our bill sides with the consumers of vocational rehabilitation 
services. Let me read to you from a letter from ARC, formerly known as 
the Association for Retarded Citizens of the United States, concerning 
efforts to strike vocational rehabilitation from this bill:

       To delink the vocational rehabilitation system from this 
     new system (in CAREERS) will only serve to isolate the V.R. 
     system and people with mental retardation from the employers. 
     No one would gain, except those professionals in the V.R. 
     system whose sole agenda is to protect turf. We don't think 
     that's what reform is all about.

  I couldn't have said it better myself.
  Some have complained that this bill could lead to mandatory Federal 
tracking, forcing students into particular occupations at a very early 
age. To address this issue, we have added the following provision to 
the bill: ``Nothing in this act shall mandate that any individual, 
particularly youth served under title II of this act, be required to 
choose a specific career path or major.'' This bill does not mandate 
tracking.
  We have heard from various Members concerned about the privacy of 
labor market and other data collected under the legislation. We have 
added specific language restating title 13 of the Census Act relating 
to confidentiality of information, and added language ensuring that 
this act is consistent with the Family Education Privacy Rights Act.
  There have been some concerns expressed about the skill standards 
provisions of this bill. Our bill recognizes that because work force 
development programs are all about preparing individuals for careers, 
we must increase the involvement of business and industry--both small 
and large--in the design and implementation of State and local work 
force preparation programs. It is essential that employers identify the 
skills needed in the workplace, in order that employment and training 
assistance programs are relevant and useful. As such, we include 
provisions in the bill that tie program performance to providing the 
skills that have been recognized by industry as necessary to perform a 
specific occupation. We also say that program participants may receive 
skill certificates--portable credentials that certify that an 
individual has mastered the occupational skills identified by employers 
as necessary to do a job. We do not require however that any individual 
must receive such certificates, or that any employer must accept or use 
skill certificates in making hiring decisions. We are working with 
Congressman Weldon to add language to the bill clarifying that we will 
not force anyone to meet these skill standards or to attain a skill 
certificate. We also add language to the bill clarifying that skill 
certificate shall not replace high school diplomas or GED's.
  Another issue you may hear about is governance. Some complain that 
CAREERS doesn't mandate that State Education Agencies [SEA's] control 
all the education money. They are right. We allow States to determine, 
consistent with their constitutions and State law, which agency should 
control the money. Most, if not all, States will choose to have their 
SEA's run this program. But the point is, it should be their decision.
  Maintenance of effort is an issue that folks inside the beltway use a 
lot. In this case, what this means is the Federal Government should 
force States to maintain their job training spending even when the 
Federal Government is dramatically scaling back its funding. That just 
doesn't seem fair to me. Instead, I have agreed in my chairman's 
package to add a provision saying that Federal funds may ``supplement, 
but not supplant'' State funds as a compromise.
  Finally, one of the big issues that Members, particularly those from 
the other side of the aisle, may raise concerns a provision that 
allows Governors to transfer 10 percent of their funds between the 
youth and adult training blocks. First, let me make it clear that under 
this transfer authority, transfered funds must be spent at the local 
level. Second, it is important that every one know exactly why we added 
this provision to the bill: to allow States additional flexibility to 
determine how best to meet the education and training needs of their 
State. This is especially true during this time of substantial cut 
backs in Federal job training funds. With these dramatically reduced 
spending levels, it only makes sense to give States the ability to 
shift a small amount of funding around to fill gaps in services that 
may arise.

  Now, back to the specifics of our bill. We have traveled a long road 
to reform. Our efforts began in the spring of 1992, when I, along with 
our then-minority leader Bob Michel, and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Gunderson] introduced the Bush administration's Job Training 2000 
legislation, which included many of the underlying principles of reform 
that are contained in CAREERS. With this legislation, the concepts of 
consolidation, of integrated service delivery, and of a voucher-driven 
training system were introduced. The following Congress, Mr. Gunderson 
and I introduced H.R. 2943, the Workforce Preparation and Development 
Act, which built upon the principles of Job Training 2000--taking 
reform a few steps further. Later that Congress, we introduced H.R. 
4407, the first CAREERS bill, which again, took reform further--
consolidating 86 job training programs into 7 block grant systems to 
States and localities. Today, we are considering legislation which a 
year ago, I would not have thought possible. The CAREERS bill 
represents sweeping reform of this country's employment and training 
system--an effort to vastly improve the employment opportunities for 
U.S. citizens, and to strengthen U.S. competitiveness.
  In addition to the consolidation of over 150 Federal programs into 4 
block grants to States and to local communities, CAREERS saves the 
taxpayer over $6.5 billion over 5 years. The four consolidation grants 
include: First, a youth development and career preparation grant; 
second, an adult employment and training grant; third, a vocational 
rehabilitation grant; and fourth, an adult education and literacy 
grant. And these four programs, working together, will form each 
State's work force preparation system.
  CAREERS transfers authority to States and local communities for the 
design and operation of their own individual work force systems. We 
significantly reduce administrative, paperwork, planning, reporting, 
and data collection requirements.
  CAREERS establishes a system that is market driven by: Requiring 
business involvement in program design and implementation; the infusion 
of competition among service providers both through the use of 
vouchers, empowering individuals to choose the training that fits their 
needs, and through competition to provide services; and a requirement 
that training be tied to occupations in demand in the local community. 
CAREERS also encourages individual responsibility, by stressing an 
employment-first approach for adults, providing education and training 
only for individuals determined to be in need of such additional 
services in order to obtain employment.
  The bill encourages, but does not require the establishment of 
integrated career centers--single points of entry into the local work 
force development system. The bill does require an integrated approach 
to service delivery however, where services are integrated at least 
through computer linkages and interaction between individual employment 
and training offices in the community.
  The legislation improves on our 50-year-old system of labor market 
information--making it useful to employers and to participants alike--
ensuring that work force development programs are related to actual 
employment needs of employers within States and localities. An accurate 
and up-to-date system of labor market information is key to empowering 
individuals to make their own informed career 

[[Page H9157]]
choices, and is key to the success of a voucher-driven training system.
  CAREERS provides a separate block grant for adult education and 
family literacy. Although it is very important to link adult education 
to job training programs because of the high number of individuals who 
need to improve their literacy skills before they can avail themselves 
of job training and employment opportunities, adult education and 
literacy programs provide a variety of very important services to our 
Nation's citizens.
  Many individuals use adult education programs to obtain the English 
language skills they need to obtain citizenship. Others enroll in 
classes in order to obtain the additional education they need to truly 
be their child's first and most important teacher. Of great importance 
to me, are the bill's family literacy provisions, which provide a very 
intensive approach to adult education. For many children, their parents 
are undereducated, have low literacy skills, and lack the self-esteem 
necessary to be their child's first teacher. As a result, these 
children lack a strong literacy experience, lack reading readiness, and 
enter school behind their peers. By working with the entire family, 
family literacy programs not only assist parents in building their 
literacy and education skills, but they also provide educational 
assistance to their children to ensure that they do not experience 
educational failure which can prevent them from becoming productive 
members of society.
  As I mentioned before, a number of provisions have been added to the 
bill, ensuring confidentiality of information, applying the Family 
Education Rights and Privacy Act protections to programs established 
under CAREERS; and clarifying that all data collected from the labor 
market information system is aggregate data from the census and other 
public sources. In other words, no personal information is collected on 
individuals, especially youth. Protections were also added to the bill, 
clarifying that nothing in the CAREERS Act may be used to compel any 
individual, especially youth, to pursue a specific career.
  Finally, CAREERS takes the bold step of promoting the privatization 
of two Government-sponsored enterprises, the Student Loan Marketing 
Association and the College Construction Loan Insurance Association. 
Both organizations were chartered under the Higher Education Act of 
1965 in order to help students and institutions of higher education. 
Both have successfully fulfilled their original missions and the time 
is right to free them from Government restrictions and allow their 
expansion into the private arena. The bill also eliminates the 
cumbersome and heavily criticized State postsecondary review entities--
SPRES--which have placed a tremendous burden on our institutions of 
higher education. CAREERS prevents the Department of Education from 
implementing the 85-15 rule--which governs student aid for proprietary 
schools in an unfair and retroactive way.
  The CAREERS Act is true reform. It is a good bill. I urge your 
support for its passage.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Montana [Mr. Williams].
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding 
time to me. We have worked on this bill in the spirit of bipartisan 
cooperation. This is the first, if my recollection is correct, the 
first major piece of reform legislation to reach this floor in a 
bipartisan manner.
  Mr. Chairman, the legislation consolidates more than 80 existing 
training and education programs into 4 separate block grants. President 
Bill Clinton encouraged this effort because creating a streamlined, 
coordinated work force development system is something that is not 
either a Democratic or a Republican only initiative, it is something 
that leaders in both parties believe is needed and it remains a 
priority for President Clinton.
  We had some things we wanted to see included in this bill if it were 
to gain Democratic support, and many of those have been included in the 
bill before us. Because of that, and because of our friendship 
together, I want to thank both the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
Chairman Goodling, and the gentleman from California, Chairman McKeon, 
for working so closely with the Democratic side as we moved this bill 
through the committee.
  Chairman McKeon and I held close to 20 days of public hearings on the 
various aspects of this legislation. After the bill was voted out of 
our subcommittee, and then the full committee, several Republican 
Governors and representatives of the Eagle Forum threatened to oppose 
this bill if the legislation was not altered to meet their own 
ideological objections, so the bill before us today contains several 
changes suggested by these groups. My side, frankly, would not have 
given these groups the changes they wanted, but I understand the 
necessity for the Republicans to work with them.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill, however, is still a pretty good bill. Major 
changes, however, really have to be made in this bill before it becomes 
law.
  First, the vocational rehabilitation section needs to be completely 
revamped. As that section now stands, our existing State vocational 
rehabilitation could be undermined. And make no mistakes, the clients 
of vocational rehabilitation are overwhelmingly in opposition to that 
section of this bill.
  Second, we must maintain the dedicated funding stream for both in-
school and out-of-school youth.
  Third, the bill has been changed since committee to allow governors 
to use future-year program funds to pay back funds which have been 
misused in prior years; what the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] 
calls the ``Oops'' amendment.
  Fourth, the governance structure of this bill is still flawed and 
could, in a number of instances, result in unproductive political 
struggles at the State and local levels in ways that could undermine 
the State and local constitutions or governance systems, and that 
matter simply has to be corrected.
  And, finally, Mr. Chairman, when the bill was in committee there was 
a bipartisan commitment to work out a smooth transition from the 
current school-to-work system, which was enacted last year with 
bipartisan support to this new CAREERS Act. We have not achieved that 
transition yet, but I believe it is necessary if this bill is to be 
successfully enacted into law.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, to all of my colleagues let me say this. 
President Clinton has, for many years, championed many of the 
provisions that we have now placed in this bill. He has made the use of 
career grants one of the linchpins of his job training initiatives. 
One-stop centers, as America has recognized, are a central element of 
the Clinton job training reform proposals.
  Including all the appropriate State and local interests in the 
development of State and local job training plans, the collaborative 
process, that is at the heart of this bill, is one of the major reforms 
made by former President Bush and now President Clinton's School to 
Work Opportunities Act, which was enacted last year with the support of 
a bipartisan Congress. President Clinton believes that progress on this 
bill is an important first step in the process of revamping our 
Nation's work force development system. Moving this bill forward moves 
the process along, and so I ask my colleagues to weigh that important 
factor of Presidential leadership when they cast their vote on this 
legislation.
  Again, I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], a member of the committee who has been 
tirelessly working toward giving us a good future as far as our work 
force is concerned.
  (Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this 
legislation and encourage all my colleagues to support it as well. I 
want to begin by paying special tribute to our leaders on both sides, 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. McKeon] on our side; and certainly the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Clay] and the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams] on 
the Democratic side.
  This is, ladies and gentlemen, one of the first experiences in this 
Congress, and a most important experience at this time, during the fall 
session, where we can literally come to the Congress in a bipartisan 
manner, and the Congress, in a bipartisan way, can move this 
legislation out. So I would encourage all of my colleagues of both 
parties to support this bill as we move through.
  Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that we have a couple of basic dynamics 
that drive this bill. The first dynamic is that we are in a global 
marketplace, whether we like it or not. This is the post-GATT, post-
NAFTA era. And it is not only a global marketplace but a high-tech 
marketplace. Never have we 

[[Page H9158]]
had the need for high-skilled trained workers that we do today, and 
never will workers need the ongoing training and retraining that they 
need today, simply to keep their jobs, to say nothing of moving upward.
  At the same time that we face that dynamic, we also recognize that we 
are in the process of trying to do this within an era of balancing the 
Federal budget. So we have less Federal money at the same time we have 
a greater need. That is the underlying foundation of the legislation in 
front of us. It is simply a recognition that we are going to have to 
consolidate programs here at the Federal level, we are going to have to 
turn as much of this authority and flexibility over to the States and 
over to the local governments to design and implement programs based on 
the priorities and the specific needs of their area.
  So we consolidate well over 100 programs into 4 basic block grants; 
an adult training program, an adult education program, a youth 
training, and the vocational rehabilitation. Within each of those 
categories we are taking many different programs and sending them back. 
And as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the chairman of 
our committee has said, we have worked long and hard to try to work out 
the differences and the concerns from the Governors, from the education 
community, from the business community, from the family groups, et 
cetera.
  Mr. Chairman, none of this has been easy, especially when we are 
trying to maintain flexibility to accomplish the kind of results that 
we are particularly seeking. We have done that in this bill. I have to 
tell my colleagues that I would hope that we would still make some 
changes. I, like Mr. Roemer, want to solve some of the transition 
problems with school-to-work as we move this into conference. I will 
say that up front.
  This bill is not a perfect bill, but it is a giant step forward from 
where we are today, and, more importantly, it is an essential step in 
recognizing the dual challenges of preparing a skilled work force 
within the context of deficit reduction.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Kildee].
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss this legislation 
which seeks to consolidate a number of our current job training and 
education programs into an integrated system. I want to commend the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], my chairman, for his 
prodigious efforts on this bill.
  My colleagues, the direction in which this bill seeks to take us is 
the right one. For a number of years now, as the employment and 
training needs of America changed, we have tended to address those 
needs through specific separately funded and administered programs, 
and, unfortunately, by that method we have often wound up with 
overlapping and duplicative efforts which hinder the local community's 
ability to deliver the services needed.
  I want to particularly commend the gentleman from California, Buck 
McKeon, the subcommittee chairman, for recognizing the need for change 
in that area.
  Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I am still somewhat afraid that we 
are creating a system that will not be able to do what we expect it to 
do. Today, we will hear that although this bill authorizes funding at a 
level 20 percent below current levels, we are told that administrative 
savings and economies of scale will generate savings that can be driven 
into services for the young people and adults served under this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, that was done before the Committee on Appropriations 
determined that local communities will have $1.5 billion fewer to spend 
on job training programs next year. That very much frightens me, this 
lack of fusion between the authorization and the appropriations and the 
dynamics created by that.
  Mr. Chairman, many of my colleagues on the minority side of our 
committee would like to vote for this bill, and, hopefully, before the 
day is over we can and will, because we think it is definitely a step 
in the right direction. But we do have reservations. We want to see an 
agreement of the vocational rehabilitation title worked out, and I 
think we are still working on that. I think both sides recognize that 
that is an effort that should yield some fruit.
  We would also like to preserve the progress we have made in the 
School to Work Act, which Mr. Gunderson mentioned in his statement 
today. This is a very good act brought to us by the Business Roundtable 
and by many of the chambers of commerce.
  The gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams] and I will be offering a 
number of amendments today which will seek to preserve the integrity of 
decisionmaking in schools. In particular, Mr. Williams and I will offer 
an amendment to strike the bill's provisions that would allow a 
governor to transfer 10 percent of funds between title II youth 
programs and to title III adult employment and training programs.
  Mr. Chairman, there will be a number of other amendments offered to 
improve this bill by Members on both sides. I want to thank our 
colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle for working with us. I 
think we still have work to do today right on this floor, and I think 
by the time this debate is concluded, if we have worked out the areas I 
have mentioned, we will have strong support on our side. We will still 
have some points to work out in conference committee, and I look 
forward to that, but as has been pointed out, there has been a certain 
degree of collegiality across the aisle in working this bill out. I 
hope that continues through the process of discussion today.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. McKeon], the subcommittee chairman, who has burned a 
lot of midnight oil trying to please everyone, and that is difficult to 
do.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased today to join with the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the distinguished chairman 
of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities. I extend to 
the gentleman my thanks for his leadership and for the opportunity he 
has given me as a new chairman, a relatively new Member of Congress, to 
participate in this process.
  Mr. Chairman, I came to Congress with the idea of trying to cut 
Federal bureaucracy and trying to give power out to the local 
communities. One of the first things that was given me on this 
committee was to work on the 
CAREERS Act.
  This is a bill that had been placed into the 103d Congress by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], but we were not able to move it at that 
time. It was the opportunity of taking 50 job training bills and 
cutting it down to 4 and block granting it out to the States. With the 
change in the Congress this year, he gave me the responsibility to 
carry that legislation. We made changes in it; we increased it to 150 
job training bills.
  I have here copies of all of the bills that this bill will replace. 
We are talking about 3,000 pages, cutting it down less to 300 pages, 
and in the process changing about $1 billion a year.
  That did not happen just by putting pen to paper. It was a real 
process. We started early on. We met with the administration. We met 
with the other side. I mentioned to the other side that if we had 
disagreements, it would not be because they were Democrats and we were 
Republicans. It would be because we had a difference in philosophy. We 
really have tried to work together and come up with something that we 
can all be proud of.
  In the process, not everyone is happy, not everyone is unhappy. We 
are probably all kind of in a position that if we were king for a day, 
we would like things to be maybe a little different, but none of us 
are. We are all Members of Congress. We are here representing our 
people throughout this country, and we have tried to involve everyone 
that will be affected in this process.
  There have been some concerns raised. There have been concerns raised 
specifically about this bill. We have added a number of provisions 
ensuring confidentiality of information, applying the Family Education 
Rights and 

[[Page H9159]]
Privacy Act protections to programs established under CAREERS, and 
clarifying all data collected from the Data Market Information System's 
aggregate data from the census and other public sources. In other 
words, no personal information is collected on individuals, especially 
youth.
  Programs were also proadded to the bill clarifying that nothing in 
the 
CAREERS Act may be used to require any individual, especially a young 
person, to pursue a specific career or career path in school. We are 
also working with Congressman Weldon on language to add to the bill 
stating that nothing in the CAREERS Act may be used to require any 
individual to acquire a skill certificate or skill standards.
  As a Congressman from the district in California that has been hard 
hit by defense and aerospace cutbacks, I understand the need to have an 
effective and efficient system of work force preparation and employment 
assistance in this country. The skill of this Nation's work force are 
more important today than ever before to U.S. competitiveness. However, 
our current patchwork of Federal programs is not the answer.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] and the 
gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams] and Members on the other side of 
the aisle, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], others who have 
worked so hard to bring this bill to the floor, and Members on our 
side, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Goodling, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Riggs], our vice chairman, the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. 
Zeliff], who is not on this committee, but who has been working on 
this 
CAREERS work for a number of years.
  There are many that I would like to thank. I should not have even 
started naming names. But I encourage all 
of our colleagues to support the 
CAREERS legislation.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, why is there such a cynical attitude in 
America today, sometimes unfairly, about how Congress does not work, 
how it is not doing enough to downsize Government, work together, and 
instead plays blame games and is enmeshed in gridlock all the time?
  I think this bill is a fine example of how Congress can work. Now, it 
is not a perfect bill, and maybe it will move toward perfection in 
conference. But this bill certainly epitomizes bipartisanship, and I 
would like to salute the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], 
the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon], the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay], and 
the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams], for working together on a 
bill.
  I would also say that this is about downsizing and efficiency. Over 
100 Federal programs are now being consolidated into 4 block grants. 
That is the direction the American people want us to go in.
  Finally, it is about local answers solving some of our problems, not 
big bureaucracies in Washington, DC, necessarily solving these 
problems. So I think this bill is a tribute to how Congress can work in 
the future.
  Now, I intended to offer an amendment on the school-to-work 
transition title of this bill, and I will not offer that because, as 
the Chinese proverb goes, ``A thousand-mile journey begins with one 
single step.'' I think we are making a single step in this bill, and I 
am hopeful we will complete the journey in conference to make sure that 
we have local problems answered by our Governors and our schools, and 
not the Federal Government, by continuing a program we have started a 
few years ago with school-to-work.
  Now, why is it a big problem, Mr. Chairman? It is one of the biggest 
problems that we face in reforming our education system in our work 
force, because it involves such a big number of students. Seventy-five 
percent of our students in America do not go on to get a college 
degree. I have business leaders in my district, small business leaders, 
two I just met with over the August work period at Schaefer Gear in 
South Bend. Mr. Bipin Doshie, he employs 75 people in South Bend. He 
told me he would hire 12 new people tomorrow if we can get better 
qualified students coming out of our high schools and a better 
connection between the work force and our schools.
  In Syracuse, IN, at Laketronics, Mr. Bob McNary told me he employs 18 
people. He would hire 5 more people if we can get better school-to-work 
corrections at the local level, not coming from Washington, DC.
  I would encourage us to work on this very, very important problem, 
Mr. Chairman, not only because it involves 75 percent of our students, 
but I think Hedrick Smith says it well in a new book he has just 
written that I strongly recommend to my colleagues called ``Rethinking 
America'': Our work force is changing dramatically as we speak. Our 
education system needs to change dramatically in order to train our new 
workers on the assembly line. They are not just on the assembly line 
screwing a screw into a door anymore. They are working on computers. 
They are working on teams. They are responsible for quality control. 
These people are our best asset in America, our workers. Let us make 
sure they are trained adequately at the local level, with our business 
cooperating and solving this problem, to make sure we are competitive 
with the Japanese and the Germans.
  Mr. Chairman, with that, I again say let us continue to work on this 
in conference, where I hope to be involved in the conference language 
on this transition program. Twenty-seven States have started this 
program. Let us work in a bipartisan way to solve this vexing problem.
  Mr. Chairman, again, I salute the Republicans and Democrats working 
together on this.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Barrett].
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1617 will break the shackles of duplication and 
Federal mandates, and will empower States and localities to design 
programs that will best meet the needs of their communities.
  This bipartisan bill will eliminate more than 150 Federal programs, 
and will continue the Federal commitment, through local leaders, of 
providing services to those most in need.
  The bill would establish area work force development boards made up 
of local leaders, advocates, employers, and educators, that know best 
the needs of their area and can actually see the success and failure of 
the present system and present programs.
  Constituents have told me that H.R. 1617 would eliminate Federal 
vocational rehabilitation. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
  We call for maintaining Federal funding for voc rehab and would 
redesign the delivery of services by giving local providers and 
consumers greater opportunities.
  Later today we will consider an amendment by Chairman Goodling that 
will give States greater flexibility in providing voc rehab services. 
It would allow the Governor and consumers to come up with an 
alternative plan to provide needed services. While I have concerns that 
this may only perpetuate some of the problems existing in voc rehab, it 
is my hope that it will be an engine of positive change in the States, 
if they choose this option.
  On balance, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1617 will give those most in need--the 
individuals, communities, and States--the ability to create or continue 
to support, programs that provide job training, counseling, and 
education.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1617.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Missouri for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Chairman let me say I rise to say that I have some reservations 
about this bill, and I am going to be listening to the debate today and 
listening to the amendments that are put forward to ultimately decide 
how I vote. But let me say I have very strong reservations about the 
bill.
  First of all, youth development and adult employment block grants are 
funded at a 20-percent level below the appropriation of last year, for 
the programs being consolidated. The adult 

[[Page H9160]]

education block granted is funded 10 percent below last year's level.
  Let me say, as I have mentioned many, many times in our committee, my 
reservation about the whole block grant system. Because I was a State 
legislator for 12 years before coming to Congress, and when we first 
heard about block grants, we thought it was a panacea. But we soon 
learned, very sadly, that it was not.
  Block grants only work when they are fully funded. If they are not 
fully funded, all the States are deciding, all the Governors are 
deciding, is where to spread the pain, what programs to cut. To me, 
that does not seem like much progress at all.
  The State education department of New York sent me a letter. Let me 
just read one paragraph.
  They said:

       Allowing transfer of funds between block grants, as this 
     bill provides, could result in an additional loss of services 
     to program recipients and unpredictability in funding that 
     disrupts local program planning. We anticipate that Federal 
     funding for work force development programs will be reduced 
     in the coming fiscal year as a result of deficit reduction 
     efforts. Transferability of funds will only exacerbate 
     anticipated uncertainty and cause burdensome fluctuations in 
     services among already underserved groups.

  Let me talk about some of the reservations I have. The CAREERS bill 
helps to eliminate overlap in Federal education and job training 
programs, but I believe it goes too far. It consolidates 80 programs 
into four block grants, too much discretion as far as I am concerned 
for the States to administer such important programs that people depend 
on. In a crunch, when Governors are looking to save money and cutting 
budgets, who is going to be hurt by this?
  Second, the ability of the Governor to transfer 10 percent of the 
funds from one title of the bill to the other does not help to ensure, 
in my opinion, that those who need the funds will actually receive it. 
The Governor will have chief authority to administer the funds. He 
could move the funds elsewhere, rather than directing them toward these 
programs.
  Also, instead of cutting bureaucracy, I believe it instead creates 
new levels of State bureaucracy by giving the Governors full discretion 
to administer Federal funds while bypassing the State legislatures.
  In my State of New York, we already have a State funded system of 
vocational and adult education created through a State constitution and 
promulgated by the State legislature. The State system also administers 
the Federal funding received for these programs.
  The CAREERS bill will allow the Governor to administer the Federal 
funds, thereby in our State creating two bureaucracies in New York, 
rather than one administrator.
  Also, as many of my colleagues have mentioned before, in this bill 
the vocational rehabilitation section of this bill as it now stands is 
totally unacceptable. The bill would limit State flexibility and create 
uneven access to services to those who are the truly needy. Populations 
such as the blind and disabled need our full attention and must not be 
shortchanged. I am hoping in the amendment process we can improve the 
bill. The current system that we have is fully supported by the 
disability community and is kept intact in the Senate bill.

  Let me say after saying all of that, though, I believe that this bill 
is far preferable to the bill being worked on in the Committee on Ways 
and Means. So again I would hope by the end of the day we will have 
some amendments, we will have some agreements, and have some changes. 
But right now I do believe that the bill is seriously flawed.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Souder], a member of the committee.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I commend the leadership of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and the leadership of the gentleman 
from California [Mr. McKeon], the subcommittee chairman, on the CAREERS 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, the genesis of the 
CAREERS bill on the floor today dates to the 1973 Comprehensive 
Employment and Training Act [CETA]. CETA contained employment and 
training components. The employment segment, especially disliked by 
fiscal conservatives, provided public service jobs for the unemployed. 
CETA, at its peak, was funded at $10 billion. The public sector 
component was targeted for elimination when the Reagan administration 
took office in 1981.
  I represent the congressional district Dan Quayle once held, and am 
therefore familiar with the Job Training Partnership Act which Dan 
Quayle sponsored after he won his Senate seat in 1980.

                              {time}  1300

  Senator Quayle won passage of the Quayle training for jobs bill, a 
$3.8 billion program for training and $1 billion for displaced workers. 
Under the Quayle bill, State governments had more responsibility for 
programs but services were provided by local private industry councils.
  The Quayle Job Training Partnership Act focused training on 
economically disadvantaged individuals with serious barriers to 
employment. JTPA was criticized for imposing numerous Federal 
restrictions which limited local flexibility, and burdensome planning, 
reporting and data collection requirements. Senator Quayle made a 
number of compromises to get his bill through, and today we are trying 
to improve those JTPA standards. Yet JTPA was flagged as Dan Quayle's 
most notable legislative accomplishment, when he was chosen as George 
Bush's running mate. Ironically today, many of Vice President Quayle's 
staunchest defenders have criticized CAREERS, which significantly 
improves, from a conservative perspective, Dan Quayle's greatest 
legacy.
  Legitimate concerns arose from a number of grassroots family 
organizations about careers, once it was approved by the Committee on 
Economic and Educational Opportunities. To reduce those concerns, 
language changes were agreed to. And as a result, the bill has been 
approved.

  References to Goals 2000 were stricken. References to curriculum 
requirements by a State plan under the youth block grant were deleted 
and adult common core indicators were separated from youth indicators. 
Finally, parental involvement was encouraged in the design of State and 
local systems.
  I realize there are still some concerns about this bill and, more 
important, about the Federal Government's continuing role in education. 
The debate over education reform will continue, and it will be fought 
vigorously on other more relevant bills.
  I would only ask for the family groups to consider the historic 
perspective on Federal job training. The 
CAREERS job training bill is a step forward. CAREERS follows on the 
heels of JTPA, but with far more Federal dollars driven to the local 
level with greater State and local authority, with greater fiscal 
accountability and with an anticipated 25-percent cost savings through 
efficiency and a better plan at the State level. The enactment of 
CAREERS would result in a total savings of $6.5 billion over 5 years.
  We will never eliminate all the concerns that my fellow conservatives 
share, but the majority of Americans believe that is a role for job 
training at least at the State level.
  As the chairman has said, as long as we are held accountable for 
those tax dollars, we have an obligation to hold standards to the 
States. I know the Governors have had a number of concerns and we have 
addressed some of those concerns. I supported a number of amendments in 
the committee and continue to support this bill as the best we could 
pass.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, let me just say, I am pleased to be 
able to speak now because we are in markup in the Committee on the 
Judiciary on the immigration bill, and yet I think this CAREERS Act is 
a very critical issue, especially in Colorado.
  First of all, I hope that there is going to be an amendment by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] that I would like very much to 
support if I get back and certainly will vote for. That is because in 
my area we have seen a proprietary school closed down right after the 
term started. All sorts of young students who were on financial aid 
went in and just saw the doors locked, and it has been a tremendous 
mess. This school had been in business 

[[Page H9161]]
for 91 years, and people are still trying to figure out what happened, 
because absolutely no one anticipated this closure.
  Hopefully the Owens amendment will affect that, prevent those types 
of things in the future, because there is nothing worse than someone 
trying to get their life together, getting in school, getting the 
funding and then getting there and finding out the doors are closed.
  The second amendment I am terribly interested in is that of the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink]. The Mink amendment is going to be 
talking about preserving programs for displaced homemakers, single 
parents, single pregnant women, and programs that eliminate sex bias in 
youth development. I just wanted to talk about what we found out in 
Colorado with those programs.
  In 1990, Colorado had 200,000 displaced homemakers; 80 percent of 
them were single parents. When they went around and asked the people in 
the program, the customers, if they thought this was a good program and 
would they recommend it to a friend, 96 percent said yes.
  We keep making policy on the 4 percent that said no, but 96 percent 
of these people said yes. And then when they said, did they think that 
this was a good use of tax dollars, 74 percent said yes, and they ought 
to spend more money. Of course, the rest all said yes, it was a good 
expenditure of tax moneys, but yet as high as 74 percent saying yes and 
even more money.
  Now, I think the Mink amendment makes a tremendous amount of sense. 
If we are going to talk about eliminating welfare as we know it, which 
I think is a very good idea, if we are going to talk about trying to 
help people work, then we ought to make sure that this CAREERS Act does 
not forget displaced homemakers, does not forget single parents, and 
does not forget gender bias that is in so much of what we find in some 
of these jobs, where women get tracked into the pink collar ghettos and 
can never earn a decent living. So those are two very essential 
amendments that I would like to see adopted.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Owens amendment to 
require reimbursement by non-Federal funds any federally granted money 
misspent due to willful disregard of requirements or standards.
  A situation brewing in my district speaks to the need and importance 
of this amendment. Barnes Business College, a 91-year-old proprietary 
school in Denver abruptly closed and declared bankruptcy just before 
the fall term this year. Some 700 students, many of whom receive 
student financial aid, showed up for class only to stare at locked 
doors and closure notices.
  The mystery is that no one saw this closure coming. The State's 
regulatory oversight office was caught off-guard. State and Federal 
audits gave the school a clean bill of health up until June 1993, the 
last government review done. And a recent independent audit disclosed 
``no instances of noncompliance.'' Disbursements, receipts, and cash 
balances all fell in acceptable ranges.
  So what happened? I asked the Department of Education to investigate 
and an investigation has been initiated by the department's inspector 
general's office. The U.S. Attorney General's office is also asking 
questions about the draw-down of Federal student loan receipts and the 
timing of the bankruptcy declaration.
  Although nothing is certain yet, this situation does raise questions 
about the propriety of this proprietary school. And it does follow that 
if willful disregard of operating procedures was done, the taxpayer is 
the one who would be held harmless. If nothing else, this amendment 
serves as a warning to prevent future Barnes episodes and to protect 
the taxpayer.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes and 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], another subcommittee 
chairman who has worked at great length on this issue.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me, the chairman of the committee, who has worked 
valiantly on this particular area.
  We got 40 years of Democratic rule that has given us the current 
disastrous bureaucratic system that they are talking about, and it is 
going to cost a lot of tax dollars. The tax dollars, the bureaucracy, 
the rules and the regulations actually make it more difficult than the 
current system we are trying to save.
  The CAREERS Act is one of the most commonsense, conservative pieces 
of legislation ever to be considered by any Congress. It replaces 150 
federally run job training, adult education, and literacy programs 
which did not talk to each other and do not work together. All have 
Federal bureaucracies, and all do not work. We need to replace it.
  The current CAREERS Act provides States maximum authority and 
flexibility. One of the concerns from a group that came to me was that 
we are going to take out the State legislators in this. I have been 
assured by the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon] that that is not 
the case. As a matter of fact, the language, if not in, is going to be 
placed into the CAREERS Act so that the Governors do not have full 
control, that we do put in the State legislatures.
  I would be against the bill if it did that because, my being a States 
rights advocate, I want to make sure that the State legislatures, not 
just the Governors themselves, have got control of this. The Governors 
might not like it, but that is the way it should be for the States 
rights.
  As chairman of the House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and 
Families, I would like to focus on the portions of the bill that my 
subcommittee worked on. Title IV on adult education, family literacy 
and library technology, was moved through the subcommittee. I also have 
an interest in title II and its role in vocational education.
  Title IV of the CAREERS Act consolidates again 22 programs under the 
Adult Education Act, the National Literacy Act, and the library 
literacy program under the Library Services and Construction Act, into 
one block grant for States. By the way, the Library Association and 
libraries groups fully support the implementation because one of the 
areas in which I think that if on our side of the aisle, if we 
are talking about higher technology, higher education, and the 
technological age, we need to transfer and make sure that they have up-
to-date technology, technological equipment such as computers, fiber 
optics, and so on.

  The subcommittee held hearings on this issue in Washington and in San 
Marcos, CA, in my particular district. We learned from someone like 
John Corcoran, a teacher, businessman, and author who made statements 
that men and women who cannot read or write have great difficulty in 
the most basic skills and can hardly benefit from a regular job 
training system. Literacy is a program. The National Adult Literacy 
Survey showed that of Americans at the lowest of five literacy levels, 
17 percent receive food stamps, 43 percent live in poverty, and a 
stunning 70 percent are unemployed or underemployed. So we do need 
special programs.
  He also established that adult education and family literacy grant 
States recognize that basic education for adults is one of our highest 
priorities.
  When we talk to educators, educational institutions, administration 
employees, even citizens who need the adult services, the current 
fragmented job training system keeps them from working with one another 
in their communities. It is a tangle of 150 programs; in the case of 
this subcommittee, only 22, much like the welfare system that does not 
work because it is too big, too cumbersome.
  We learned from Scott Himelstein, of the Lynch Foundation for Family 
Literacy, that if a man or a woman cannot read, one of most successful 
ways to teach them to read is with their children, so it is encouraged.
  Mr. Chairman, the programs that we have before us, there are a lot of 
areas that work. I think one of the problems with the President's 
health care bill is he tried to do too much too quick with too many 
things. What we are going to try and do is make some improvements to 
the system over a period of time. We would ask for support from both 
sides of the aisle for those improvements, and we feel right now it is 
a basically a good bill.
  I would urge its support.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Gene Green.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.

[[Page H9162]]

  I thank my ranking member. I have a particular concern about this 
bill, but I voted for it as it came out of committee. This bill makes 
dramatic steps in streamlining over 80 training programs and education 
programs. I believe almost every Member on both sides of our aisle 
wants the consolidation of these programs.
  I support the bill, as I said, when it came out of committee, with 
some reservations. This is probably the most bipartisan bill I have 
seen out of our Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities 
this year. However, the point of departure from that support is that 
there are no guarantees or assurances that people who have a history of 
being left out will continue to be served.
  Later today I will offer an amendment to title V of the bill. As it 
now stands, this bill threatens to undermine our existing State 
vocational rehab systems. I believe we can correct this problem with a 
bipartisan amendment. We are trying to work on it right now, but so far 
we are not there.
  The bill has been changed three times since it came out of our 
committee. In the last 10 days, there have been some changes. In fact, 
I know in the manager's amendment in a few minutes there are some 
suggested changes on voc rehab, but it does not go far enough. It does 
not go far to make sure that those people who particularly high cost 
vocational rehab recipients need those benefits and that revenues 
stream directly to them, not that it be siphoned off for some other 
program or some other proposal that an individual Governor has.
  I was glad to hear my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Cunningham], talk about that there is going to be a legislative 
involvement in that. That is not in the manager's amendment. It may be 
when it comes up on the floor in a few minutes. I am glad there is an 
effort to do that. But, again, this bill has been out of committee for 
at least 2 months and has not changed until today to add the 
legislative involvement with the Governor.
  There are a great many provisions in the manager's amendment on voc 
rehab that concern me. It does not contain a mechanism for the State to 
control the quality and appropriateness of vocational rehab in local 
centers.
  This bill does not allow the States, and possibly a Governor could 
make this determination, that the local centers for vocational rehab 
would not be subject to quality and appropriateness of States services 
on a statewide basis. It would allow the local work force development 
board, whose members are not required to know anything about vocational 
rehab or the needs of the people, to provide guidance providing 
vocational rehab services.
  There is a great deal wrong with this bill on vocational rehab. If 
this bill passes, the Senate actually is the best issue, it leaves 
vocational rehab the way it is dealing with those people who hgave been 
served by a number of States, including Texas, a great deal for many 
years.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman from Texas did not want to mislead 
anybody. The funding stream remains exactly as the funding stream is at 
the present time. We cannot skim anything off of it for any other 
program. That has not changed.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire 
[Mr. Zeliff] who has spent a great deal of time working on this 
program.
  Mr. ZELIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in full support of the Goodling-
McKeon bill. It was 3 years ago that I first introduced legislation to 
consolidate the over 161 Federal job training programs into a single 
block grant. The bill before us today follows my original concept and 
eliminates about 50 Federal education and training programs. Another 
100 of these duplicative Federal programs would be consolidated into 
four categorical block grants.
  I would be less than frank, Mr. Chairman, if I did not tell the 
Members that many people, including many of our national Governors, 
feel that my original bill, in a perfect world, would have done a 
better job of moving resources to the States and away from the 
micromanagement of the Federal Government. However, I believe it is now 
time for us, after working very hard together, for us to come together 
and work together in getting an effective bill passed which will 
deliver much needed services to people who need our help.
  I support the Goodling-McKeon bill because eliminating over 50 
programs and consolidating over 100 others is far better than 
maintaining the existing hodgepodge of Federal programs. This bill is 
100 percent better than the current system. When JTPA was enacted into 
law 15 years ago, originally the focus was, ``Job training legislation 
must recognize true principles of Federalism. * * * The new legislation 
will recognize the role of the State in all local programs and end the 
excessive involvement by the Federal Government. In short, the basic 
supervisory role previously performed by the Federal Government will 
now be turned over to the States, the place it really belongs.''
  I urge strongly that we support the Goodling-McKeon bill.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Gene Green.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, our chairman of the committee, and he is our chairman, 
mentioned that the Governors could not siphon this off, but I am 
looking at an amendment that would be part of the manager's amendment 
that allows the Government to appoint a board and develop a proposed 
plan for alternatives. States have traditionally provided for 
vocational rehab. In the State of Texas, in the State of South Carolina 
and a number of States, they have provided for it. The Federal funding 
is very limited.
  This amendment would allow for the Governor in an individual case, 
maybe if we include the legislature, to come in, but these decisions 
have already been made locally and would allow the Governor to create 
and have another revenue stream of Federal funding to do something else 
without necessarily going back to the legislature. If we want this to 
be a local control issue, we should give it to the legislature and the 
Governor to provide it by State law, instead of what is trying to be 
done in this amendment.
  There have been some allegations and concerns about who we represent 
when we work here on the floor. I have served 20 years in the 
legislature and worked with lots of not only provider groups, but 
recipients of vocational rehab services. They are the ones that are our 
big concern, that we deal with today, not with somebody's job in the 
State bureaucracy. I would hope that this bill, whether we do it here 
on the floor and adopt the Green amendment, or we do it in the 
conference committee and the Senate will hold firm on making sure 
vocational rehab does not get lost in a CAREERS reform bill.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, before me I have a letter from Goodwill Industries 
International, Inc.:

       Goodwill Industries International, Inc. does not support 
     efforts to delete the Vocational Rehabilitation title of H.R. 
     1617, the Consolidated and Reformed Education, Employment, 
     and Rehabilitation Systems Careers Act. Some of the 
     amendments being discussed would only protect the status quo 
     in vocational rehabilitation and would give you and your 
     House colleagues virtually no room to negotiate in a 
     conference committee with the Senate.

  Another letter before me:

       United Cerebral Palsy Association has been informed that an 
     amendment may be offered * * * when it is brought to the 
     floor for consideration by the full House. We understand that 
     the amendment would either fully strike provisions in CAREERS 
     related to vocational rehabilitation, or significantly remove 
     the linkage between these centers and vocational 
     rehabilitation in States. UCPA urges you to oppose any such 
     amendments.

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Baker].
  Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my 
appreciation to the chairman and to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
McKeon] and also the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Graham] on 
working together to reach an accommodation with regard to the important 
issue of vocational rehabilitation.
  As the manager's amendment now stands, it would provide the ability 
of 

[[Page H9163]]
the State Governor to elect and to set up an independent commission at 
the State level to manage the resources of vocational rehabilitation 
delivery services. This is an extremely important step in providing 
consistency for those States who have aggressive vocational 
rehabilitation services in place. It is an important accommodation the 
chairman has made.
  I rise on behalf of all those interests who have expressed grave 
concerns about the future delivery of those services in the various 
States in saying we very much appreciate the courtesies extended and 
the willingness to meet the needs of that important community of 
service.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 1617, the CAREERS Act, 
because I believe it is a good step forward toward repairing our 
Nation's existing fragmented, disjointed, and overlapping work force 
preparation program. The CAREERS Act is a good faith, bipartisan effort 
to simplify and improve Federal employment training efforts by 
consolidating or eliminating over 150 existing education, training, and 
employment assistance programs into four consolidated grants to the 
States. In doing so, this legislation allows for the development of 
creative and comprehensive work force preparation programs designed to 
meet the specific needs of local communities. The bill provides 
Governors with unprecedented flexibility to address the work force 
requirements in their own States, and institutes a one-stop delivery 
system uniting employers and training centers with prospective workers 
and trainees that has worked so well in Delaware.
  If we are to remain globally competitive, a comprehensive work force 
training program that allows on-the-job training and placement services 
must exist. I am confident that if this legislation is enacted, it will 
establish a work force preparation system that will allow us to reduce 
the number of dislocated workers and people on welfare, and keep our 
competitive edge in the world marketplace.
  The CAREERS Act consolidates 35 categorical education and job 
training programs for youth into a single comprehensive career 
preparation grant for youth. Clearly, the Federal Government can play a 
constructive role in helping States educate and prepare our young 
people so that they can be productive participants in tomorrow's 
economy. America's future hinges on the successes of our youth today. 
The Federal Government has directly supported vocational education 
since 1917, with the Smith-Hughes Act, which supported programs in 
agriculture and home economics. Since then, laws have been passed 
creating additional programs, establishing new priorities, and 
increasing funding for special populations. However, it is clear today 
that these programs are not achieving their intended goals. Evidence 
suggests that the programs need to be consolidated and woven into a 
seamless system to help youth move from school to jobs and further 
education.
  The CAREERS bill accomplishes this. It encourages the education 
community to join with local business, community leaders, and parents 
to reinvigorate old programs. The two principles which undergrid 
CAREERS are:
  1. Vocational/career-related education should become an integral part 
of a reformed American system of education and training. A 
comprehensive system would provide all students with access, multiple 
entry and exit points, clear education pathways, quality programs, high 
standards, information and linkage to the labor market.
  2. Vocational/career-related education should be high quality, and 
competency-based, with industry involvement

  The bill authorizes $2.3 billion in fiscal year 1997 for the youth 
development and career preparation consolidation grant that provides 
opportunities to State and local governments to design programs to 
assist high school age students with job training and vocational 
education.
  The reporting committee, the Economic and Educational Opportunities 
Committee, of which I am a member, originally included a controversial 
section on vocational rehabilitation. The overarching goal of this 
section, title 5, was to transform the system into a flexible and 
consumer-directed system, focusing on employment, empowerment through 
choice and vouchers, and results by improving rehabilitation results 
for those disabled through competition among providers. I believe this 
change in focus was overdue. I am concerned that the unemployment rate 
of severely disabled Americans continues to hover close to 80 percent. 
Many factors affecting this high rate of unemployment need to be 
addressed by Congress; CAREERS was the committee's first step, good 
faith attempt to solving this urgent problem.
  The public rehabilitation system has evolved over a 75-year history 
and has developed a degree of expertise and success in serving those 
individuals with the greatest needs. However, serious shortcomings 
exist in the centralized service delivery structure--shortcomings that 
are becoming more glaring as the need for rehabilitation among 
Americans with disabilities becomes more acute. H.R. 1617, as reported 
out of committee, maintained current funding for rehabilitation 
services to individuals with disabilities. To be certain that the 
specialized expertise for disability services would be built into the 
new system, the bill provided for a gradual transition phase from the 
current system to the new system over a 3-year period. H.R. 1617 also 
built in many safeguards to ensure that individuals with disabilities 
have their special needs properly addressed in a revised and 
restructured job training system.
  Some members of the disability community were told that under H.R. 
1617, individuals with disabilities would lose access to vocational 
services. I believed this system would provide high quality general and 
specialized rehabilitation services that would help many more 
Delawareans with disabilities enter the work force and become 
contributing, productive participants in society.
  H.R. 1617 allowed Delaware to continue to play a role, in 
coordination with the local system, for delivering direct services when 
necessary, and would have permitted to Delaware to maintain separate 
rehabilitation agencies for the blind. In testimony before the House 
Subcommittee on Select Education in 1986, James Gaschel, director of 
governmental affairs for the National Federation of the Blind, 
testified:

       This sense of growing frustration with the current system 
     of vocational rehabilitation has led many of us in the 
     National Federation of the Blind to give thought to 
     alternative system of services rather than using the 
     traditional vocational rehabilitation State agencies. One 
     plan would be to install a free market system where clients 
     could pick and choose among rehabilitation agencies who 
     would, in a sense, be competing for their patronage. This 
     would be a step beyond and outside of the institutionalized 
     State vocational rehabilitation agency system. It would 
     provide a rehabilitation benefit in a sense of 
     portable funding available to a handicapped individual for 
     use at any agency capable of providing the services. Maybe 
     we are ahead of our time in proposing such a concept, or 
     even thinking about it, but we think Congress should 
     consider it.

  In conclusion, based on input from consumers and others over many 
years, the State-run rehabilitation system is not nearly as efficient 
in the use of resources as it should be, is slow to respond to 
individual needs and aspirations has very little accountability for 
outcomes, and allows very limited market forces of competition to 
improve the quality of services to individuals with disabilities. I 
believed it to be essential, in the development of a statewide work 
force preparation system under H.R. 1617, that vocational 
rehabilitation be a full partner in the system. It would have allowed 
disabled individuals to gain access to specialized rehabilitation and 
employment services through a new, locally based, one-stop career 
center system.
  The choice before Congress is clear. It can allow the status quo 
bureaucracy to continue its mediocre performance in helping individuals 
with severe disabilities. Or, Congress can take the next logical step 
in reform of vocational rehabilitation by making the system more 
focused on real employment outcomes, empowering individuals through 
direct choice and service vouchers, and getting better results from 
vocational rehabilitation providers. I look forward to continuing to 
work on this legislation to improve it as it moves through the 
legislative process.
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of this 
important piece of legislation, and specifically in support of the 
provisions of this bill that authorize Sallie Mae to reorganize into a 
fully private company. This is one of those moments that I can state 
without reservation that what is good for northern Virginia is good for 
the country, and vice versa.
  Sallie Mae employs over 1,000 highly skilled workers in Fairfax 
County, VA. Their presence is an important part of that community not 
only in terms of the jobs they provide, but in their commitment to 
community service activities in the region. Privatizing Sallie Mae will 
be a boost to northern Virginia, as it holds the promise of a growing 
Sallie Mae presence in that area, in contrast with the work force 
contractions which the company has undertaken over the past year.
  More importantly, however, Sallie Mae's privatization is good for the 
American taxpayer. Today, unbeknownst to them, taxpayers are standing 
behind Sallie Mae's more than $50 billion in outstanding indebtedness. 
While there is no formal Federal guarantee on Sallie Mae's debt, those 
who purchase Sallie Mae securities do so based on their perceived 
ability to look to the Federal Treasury if Sallie Mae were to default 
on its obligations. Ridding the taxpayer of this sort of off-balance-
sheet liability is good public policy and it is the right thing to do 
for the American people.

[[Page H9164]]

  Sallie Mae has done a great service to this country as it has 
fulfilled its mission to assure access to student loans. More than $20 
billion in student loans flowed through guaranteed loan programs last 
year, making a college education affordable for millions of American 
families. As a private company, Sallie Mae will continue to meet that 
need, and it will be free to use its technological and personnel 
resources to serve higher education in new and innovative ways. Sallie 
Mae no longer needs to be a government-sponsored enterprise [GSE] to 
meet the needs of students, parents, and schools.
  Through this action today, the Congress is demonstrating to the 
American people its willingness to cut the Federal Government's ties 
when they are no longer needed. This action is reinventing government 
at its best and I am pleased to be closely associated with this effort. 
Northern Virginia and the Nation will be better places as a result.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the House Committee on 
Educational and Economic Opportunities, I voted to report H.R. 1617 for 
a number of reasons, including the need to cut back and consolidate job 
training programs.
  I did so with the understanding that this legislation was a 
bipartisan work in progress. To a good extent this has been true with 
one noted exception--vocational rehabilitation for our Nation's 
disabled citizens.
  Regrettably, this bill, which does so much to consolidate programs 
and transfer responsibility to the States, would eliminate the current 
vocational rehab block grant which already works.
  The job training system needs fixing, but the same does not hold true 
for the vocational rehabilitation system, and that is why the Senate 
did not tamper with the vocational rehabilitation system in its job 
training bill. The other body realizes that the current system already 
gives the States flexibility to meet the vocational rehabilitation 
needs of their citizens.
  That is also why the National Governors Association supports the 
amendment to maintain the current vocational rehabilitation system 
offered by Mr. Green. The Governors understand the axion; ``if it ain't 
broke, don't fix it.''
  Some would argue we need to increase competition between public and 
private rehabilitation providers, but the only problem is that in 21 
States there are no private providers and in my State of Rhode Island 
there is only one.
  Others argue that the General Accounting Office has criticized the 
current system. However, the GAO found that for every $1 invested in 
the vocational rehabilitation system reduced disability payments and 
increased revenues by $18. In addition, the earnings of participants 
were four times greater than nonparticipants.
  Moreover, while the costs of the program have remained the same, 
success has increased even with more enrollees who have severe 
disabilities.
  I am also concerned that the system proposed in H.R. 1617 would 
jeopardize the prospects of individuals with low-incidence 
disabilities, like blindness, who need very specialized services in 
order to enter the work force.
  Therefore, I am pleased that my colleagues joined me in voting to 
protect our Nation's disabled citizens by supporting Mr. Green's 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate that H.R. 1617's goal of 
consolidation and rationalization is worthy of support, and I look 
forward to further improvements to this bill when it reaches 
conference.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, Sallie Mae was created in 1972 to help ensure 
adequate private sector funding for federally guaranteed education 
loans. It operates under a Federal charter as a Government-sponsored, 
for-profit, publicly owned corporation. By ensuring liquidity to banks 
that originate student loans, Sallie Mae has fulfilled the underlying 
policy objective of full access for qualified students to education 
loans under the Federal Family Education Loan Program.
  The secondary market that Sallie Mae has created is now occupied by 
47 participants, and thousands of lenders nationwide are now 
originating loans and financing them in myriad ways. Market liquidity 
and access to loans no longer require Government sponsorship. 
Currently, Sallie Mae is restricted by its Federal charter from 
entering new lines of business to which its expertise may be suited, 
such as the processing of high volumes of heavily regulated paper or 
providing additional services to its college and bank partners.
  A fully privatized Sallie Mae would remain committed to its core 
business of student loans, even as it expands into new arenas. In 
exchange for the freedom to expand into new areas of business, under 
H.R. 1617, Sallie Mae would give up the advantages of GSE status, such 
as exemption from State or local taxes and their exemption from certain 
SEC requirements. H.R. 1617 will allow the stockholders of Sallie Mae 
who have substantial financial investments in the company to make the 
decision on privatization. Once it's privatized, taxpayers will be 
relieved of the implicit liability estimated at $50 billion, stemming 
from the Government's implied responsibility for GSE's. I urge my 
colleagues to support the privatization of Sallie Mae and pass H.R. 
1617.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
consisting of the text of H.R. 2332 shall be considered by titles as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment.
  The first six sections of each title are considered as having been 
read. Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in order 
to consider the amendment printed in House Report 104-249, if offered, 
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] or his designee. That 
amendment shall be considered as read, may amend portions of the bill 
not yet read for amendment, is not subject to amendment, and is not 
subject to a demand for a division of the question.
  Debate on the amendment is limited to a period of 10 minutes, equally 
divided and controlled by the proponents and the opponents of the 
amendment. After disposition of that amendment, the bill as then 
perfected will be considered as original text. During consideration of 
the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
accord priority in recognition to a Member who has caused an amendment 
to be printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. 
Those amendments will be considered as having been read.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the--
       (1) ``Consolidated and Reformed Education, Employment, and 
     Rehabilitation Systems Act''; or
       (2) ``CAREERS Act''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to section 1? If not, the Clerk 
will designate section 2.
  The text of section 2 is as follows:

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
Sec. 3. Purpose.
Sec. 4. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 5. Definitions.
Sec. 6. Transition.

             TITLE I--WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT INFRASTRUCTURE

Sec. 101. Purpose of title.

              Subtitle A--State and Local Responsibilities

Sec. 102. State requirements.
Sec. 103. Collaborative process regarding State system.
Sec. 104. Consolidated State workforce development and literacy plan.
Sec. 105. Establishment of workforce development areas.
Sec. 106. Provisions regarding local workforce development boards.
Sec. 107. Establishment of integrated career center systems.
Sec. 108. Identification of eligible education, training, and 
              vocational rehabilitation service providers.
Sec. 109. Management information systems.
Sec. 110. Performance accountability system.
Sec. 111. Limitation on Federal regulation.
Sec. 112. General provision.
Sec. 113. Liability.

              Subtitle B--Amendments to Wagner-Peyser Act

Sec. 131. General program requirements.
Sec. 132. Labor market information.

                       Subtitle C--Worker Rights

Sec. 141. Requirements.

 TITLE II--YOUTH DEVELOPMENT AND CAREER PREPARATION CONSOLIDATION GRANT

Sec. 201. Purposes.
Sec. 202. Definitions.

                       Subtitle A--State Funding

Sec. 211. National and State funding.
Sec. 212. Within State allocation.

       Subtitle B--State Organizational, Planning, and Reporting 
                            Responsibilities

Sec. 221. State plan.
Sec. 222. State programs and State activities.
Sec. 223. Incentive awards.
Sec. 224. Core standards, performance goals, and measures.

         Subtitle C--Subgrants for In-School and At-Risk Youth

Sec. 231. Partnership agreements.
Sec. 232. Distribution of funds.

                       Chapter 1--In-School Youth

Sec. 241. Uses of funds for in-school youth.

                        Chapter 2--At-Risk Youth

Sec. 245. Uses of funds for at-risk youth.
Sec. 246. At-risk youth providers.

                     Subtitle D--National Programs

Sec. 251. Research activities.

[[Page H9165]]

Sec. 252. Assessment and data collection of youth development and 
              career preparation programs.
Sec. 253. National center or centers for research.

      TITLE III--ADULT EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSOLIDATION GRANT

Sec. 301. Purpose.

     Subtitle A--Adult Employment and Training Consolidation Grant

Sec. 311. Authorization.
Sec. 312. Allotment among States.
Sec. 313. Allocation within States.
Sec. 314. Additional State plan requirements.
Sec. 315. Use of amounts.
Sec. 316. Core standards, performance goals, and measures.

                      Subtitle B--Federal Programs

Sec. 321. National discretionary grants.
Sec. 322. Disaster relief employment assistance.
Sec. 323. Research, demonstration, evaluation, and capacity building.
Sec. 324. Workforce skills and development loans.
Sec. 325. Employment, training, and education assistance for Native 
              Americans.
Sec. 326. Employment, training, and education assistance for migrant 
              and seasonal farmworkers.
 TITLE IV--ADULT EDUCATION AND FAMILY LITERACY CONSOLIDATION GRANT AND 
          LIBRARY SERVICES AND TECHNOLOGY CONSOLIDATION GRANT

Sec. 401. Findings.
Sec. 402. Definitions.

  Subtitle A--Adult Education and Family Literacy Consolidation Grant

Sec. 411. Purposes.

                           Chapter 1--Funding

Sec. 421. Reservations from amounts appropriated.
Sec. 422. Allotment.

                      Chapter 2--Grants to States

Sec. 431. Requirement to make grants.
Sec. 432. Uses of funds.
Sec. 433. Additional grant requirements.
Sec. 434. Performance measures.

                      Chapter 3--National Programs

Sec. 441. National Institute for Literacy.
Sec. 442. National leadership activities.

    Subtitle B--Library Services and Technology Consolidation Grant

Sec. 451. Purposes.
Sec. 452. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 453. Allotments.
Sec. 454. Grants to States.
Sec. 455. Uses of funds.
Sec. 456. Annual applications.

           TITLE V--AMENDMENTS TO REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973

       Subtitle A--Vocational Rehabilitation Consolidation Grant

                      Chapter 1--Transition Period

Sec. 501. Transition.

      Chapter 2--Revision of Title I of Rehabilitation Act of 1973

Sec. 511. Revision of title I.

       Subtitle B--Other Amendments to Rehabilitation Act of 1973

Sec. 521. Training and demonstration projects.
Sec. 522. Employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities.
Sec. 523. Certain amounts.
                TITLE VI--HIGHER EDUCATION PRIVATIZATION

Sec. 601. Reorganization of the Student Loan Marketing Association 
              through the formation of a holding company.
Sec. 602. Privatization of College Construction Loan Insurance 
              Association.
               TITLE VII--REPEALERS AND OTHER AMENDMENTS

Sec. 701. Higher education provisions.
Sec. 702. Amendment to Higher Education Act.
Sec. 703. Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education 
              Act.
Sec. 704. Smith-Hughes Act.
Sec. 705. School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994.
Sec. 706. School Dropout Assistance Act.
Sec. 707. Adult Education Act.
Sec. 708. National Literacy Act.
Sec. 709. Library Services and Construction Act.
Sec. 710. Technology for Education Act of 1994.
Sec. 711. Job Training Partnership Act.
Sec. 712. Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act.
Sec. 713. Effective date.


                   amendment offered by mr. goodling

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I offer the chairman's amendment to the 
CAREERS Act.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Goodling: Page 2, in the matter 
     relating to section 108, strike ``Education'' and insert 
     ``education''.
       Page 2, in the matter relating to subtitle C, strike 
     ``Worker Rights'' and insert ``General Provisions''.
       Page 2, in the matter relating to section 141, strike 
     ``Requirements.'' and insert ``Worker rights.''.
       Page 2, after the matter relating to section 141, insert 
     the following:
       Sec. 142. Transferability.
       Page 2, strike the matter relating to section 224.
       Page 3, strike the matter relating to section 316.
       Page 3, strike the matter relating to section 434.
       Page 4, in the matter relating to section 702, strike 
     ``Amendment to Higher Education Act'' and insert ``Eligible 
     institutions.''.
       Page 18, line 15, strike ``out-of-school''.
       Page 30, beginning on line 20, strike ``organization 
     representing parents''.
       Page 31, line 1, insert ``and entity'' after ``agency''.
       Page 31, after line 22, insert the following:
       (H) the State entity responsible for setting education 
     policies, consistent with State law, on the date preceding 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (3) representatives of the State legislature.
       Page 32, after line 24, add the following:
       (3) Disagreement.--The Governor shall accept and include 
     with the State plan submitted under section 104, any 
     disagreeing views submitted by a participant of the 
     collaborative process if such views represent disagreement in 
     the area in which such participant was selected for 
     representation.
       Page 36, strike lines 8 through 13.
       Page 36, line 14, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(c)''.
       Page 38, after ``including'' insert ``academic and 
     vocational administrators, members of local schools boards, 
     principals, teachers, postsecondary and other adult education 
     administrators and instructors, including community 
     colleges,''.
       Page 62, line 3, strike ``customer'' and insert ``the''.
       Page 63, line 1, strike ``will measure'' and insert ``must 
     demonstrate''.
       Page 63, beginning on line 18, strike ``appropriate'' and 
     all that follows through ``among'' on line 19.
       Page 71, line 2, insert ``by the Secretary of Labor or the 
     Secretary of Education, as the case may be,'' after 
     ``disallowed''.
       Page 71, line 4, strike ``this Act'' and insert ``chapter 2 
     of title II, title III,''.
       Page 71, line 5, strike ``the'' and insert ``such chapter 
     or title''.
       Page 72, line 25, strike the semicolon and insert ``, 
     which, to the extent practicable, shall be done through the 
     private sector;''.
       Page 68, line 3, strike ``elected''.
       Page 89, line 19, strike ``Provision'' and insert 
     ``Provisions''.
       Page 92, beginning on line 1, strike ``skills'' and all 
     that follows through line 3 and insert ``foundation and 
     occupational skills needed to be successful in a competitive 
     economy and to complete a high school diploma or general 
     equivalency diploma;''.
       Page 99, after line 20, insert the following (and 
     redesignate any subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
       (4) Federal funds to supplement, not supplant, non-federal 
     funds.--Funds received under this title shall be used only to 
     supplement the amount of funds that would, in the absence of 
     such Federal funds, be made available from non-Federal 
     sources for the education of youth participating in programs 
     assisted under this title, and not to supplant such funds.
       Page 139, line 15, insert ``media'' before ``technology''.
       Page 140, line 25, insert ``and'' after the semicolon.
       Page 141, strike lines 1 and 2.
       Page 141, line 3, strike ``(iii)'' and insert ``(ii)''.
       Page 148 line 8, strike ``one quarter of one'' and insert 
     ``4''.
       Page 149, line 21, strike ``one quarter of one'' and insert 
     ``4''.
       Page 222, strike line 10 and all that follows through page 
     225, line 13, and insert the following (and conform the table 
     of contents on page 226, after line 14):

     ``SEC. 108. STATE OPTION REGARDING ALTERNATIVE DELIVERY 
                   SYSTEMS.

       ``(a) In General.--In the case of the requirements referred 
     to in subsection (b), a State may, in its discretion, elect 
     to use alternative approaches for the implementation of any 
     of the requirements if (subject to the other provisions of 
     this section) the following conditions are met:
       ``(1) The Governor appoints a board to develop a proposed 
     plan for the alternative approaches.
       ``(2) Individuals with disabilities who are not State 
     officials or employees constitute a majority of the members 
     of such board.
       ``(3) The membership of the board includes--
       ``(A) each State administrative agent designated pursuant 
     to section 103(a); and
       ``(B) one or more individuals from private industry.
       ``(4) The State provides that the alternative approaches 
     will be implemented in accordance with the plan developed by 
     the board.
       ``(5) In the development of the plan, the public is 
     afforded a reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed 
     alternative approaches.
       ``(6) The Governor submits to the Secretary a notice that 
     the State is electing to use alternative approaches, and the 
     notice is 

[[Page H9166]]
     submitted to the Secretary not later than 60 days before the beginning 
     of the first fiscal year to which the election applies.
       ``(b) Alternatives Regarding State Administrative Structure 
     for Delivery of Services.--For purposes of subsection (a), a 
     State may elect to implement alternative approaches to 
     requirements in accordance with the following:
       ``(1) The allocation under section 102(a) (allocating 
     amounts between State administrative agents and local 
     workforce development boards) is in the discretion of the 
     State, except that not more than 80 percent of a grant under 
     section 101(a) for a fiscal year may be reserved for 
     activities of local workforce development boards.
       ``(2) With respect to the requirements established in 
     sections 103 and 104, the allocation between State 
     administrative agents and local workforce development boards 
     of responsibilities for carrying out the requirements is in 
     the discretion of the State.
       ``(3) The selection of State officials who are to 
     administer the requirements of section 103 is in the 
     discretion of the State.
       ``(c) Review and Revision of Alternative Approach.--An 
     election under subsection (a) ceases to be effective after 
     the third fiscal year of being in effect unless, during such 
     third year, the plan under the election is reviewed. The plan 
     may be reviewed and revised annually. This section applies to 
     the review and revision of the plan to the same extent and in 
     the same manner as this section applies to an original plan 
     under subsection (a).
       ``(d) Performance Accountability System.--An election under 
     subsection (a) for a State does not, with respect to carrying 
     out the program under this title in the State, affect the 
     applicability to the State of section 110 of the Consolidated 
     and Reformed Education, Employment, and Rehabilitation 
     Systems Act.''.
       Page 236, line 10, strike ``2003'' and insert ``2005''.
       At each of the following locations, strike ``2007'' and 
     insert ``2009'': Page 237, line 16; page 242, line 21; page 
     243, line 19; and page 249, line 4.
       Page 255, after line 21, insert the following new 
     paragraph:
       (3) Limitation of ownership of stock.--Except as provided 
     in subsection (d)(2) of this section, no stock of the 
     Corporation may be sold or issued to an agency, 
     instrumentality, or establishment of the United States 
     Government, to a Government corporation or a Government 
     controlled corporation (as such terms are defined in section 
     103 of title 5, United States Code), or to a Government 
     sponsored enterprise (as such term is defined in section 622 
     of title 2, United States Code). The Student Loan Marketing 
     Association shall not own any stock of the Corporation, 
     except that it may retain the stock it owns on the date of 
     enactment. The Student Loan Marketing Association shall not 
     control the operation of the Corporation, except that the 
     Student Loan Marketing Association may participate in the 
     election of directors as a shareholder, and may continue to 
     exercise its right to appoint directors under section 754 of 
     the Higher Education Act of 1965 as long as that section is 
     in effect. The Student Loan Marketing Association shall not 
     provide financial support or guarantees to the Corporation. 
     Notwithstanding the prohibitions in this subsection, the 
     United States may pursue any remedy against a holder of the 
     Corporation's stock to which it would otherwise be entitled.
       Page 258, beginning on line 8, strike ``, upon request of 
     the Secretary of Education''.
       Page 258, lines 11 and 16, strike ``voting common''.
       Page 258, beginning on line 12, strike ``one year'' and 
     insert ``6 months''.
       Page 258, beginning on line 18, strike ``within'' and all 
     that follows through ``shall purchase'' on line 20 and insert 
     ``, the Corporation shall purchase, within the period 
     specified in paragraph (1),''.
       Page 258, line 23, insert after ``financial firms'' the 
     following ``, however such price shall not exceed the value 
     of the Secretary's stock as determined by the Congressional 
     Budget Office in House Report 104-153 dated June 22, 1995''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Goodling] and a Member opposed each be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman for Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say that these are changes to the Connie Lee 
privatization language. It shortens the time the Secretary of Education 
has to sell the Government's Connie Lee stock to 6 months, prohibits 
Sallie Mae from participating in the operation of Connie Lee, except 
Sallie Mae maintains representation on the board of Connie Lee, sets 
the purchase price for the Department of Education stock at no more 
than the CBO estimated value in the event Connie Lee is required to 
repurchase the stock, extends Sallie Mae phaseout by 2 years to comply 
with the 7-year budget agreement; adds State entities to the list of 
people that are part of the collaborative process to ensure that State 
boards of education can participate; adds State legislatures to the 
list of people who can participate in the collaborative process; adds 
academic and vocational administrators to that group; adds language to 
title II, the youth block, to ensure that the title II Federal funds 
are used to supplement, not supplant, State and local funds; encourages 
private sector coordination and development of a nationwide system of 
labor exchange services to the public; clarifies that the liability 
language only applies to the local work force development board and not 
to in-school educational programs or adult education programs; strikes 
reference to the Secretary of Labor evaluating performance standards, 
because there are no Federal performance standards; changes the percent 
set aside for Indians and migrants in adult training programs from one-
quarter of 1 percent to 4 percent; strikes parent organizations from 
the list of people who can participate in the collaborative process, 
and just allows parents; strikes ``out of school'' from the definition 
of limited English proficient, so all youth are covered by the 
definition; allows States to change the financial distribution within 
the States for vocational rehabilitation services. If a State panel 
appointed by the Governor chooses to change such direction, the members 
of this panel must represent a majority of individuals with 
disabilities from the private sector, the State director of vocational 
rehabilitation, the State director of services for the blind, if 
applicable.
  Those are the changes that are in the chairman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Weldon].
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased to see that 
the series of amendments that I originally proposed to this bill were 
incorporated by the committee chairman into the manager's amendment. 
Essentially, my amendments try to achieve two very important goals: 
First, they ensure that parents will be involved in the design and 
implementation of the vocational education programs that will be 
developed with these funds. Second, the amendments made clear that 
States and localities, not the Federal Government, will decide which 
performance measures or certificates they will require in their career 
training programs.
  Research has clearly shown that parent participation improves all 
aspects of student performance. Discipline problems decrease, homework 
completion and quality improve, reading comprehension and time spent 
reading both increase. Furthermore, families are strengthened and 
parents develop closer relationships with their children and become 
more involved in their children's learning.
  Parent participation is particularly weak in secondary vocational 
education. The National Association of Vocational Education found that 
one-third of the sites preparing local plans under the Perkins Act did 
not meet with parents, not even once, leg alone built a continuing 
partnership with families and the community.
  I rise in support of the chairman's manager's amendment, which I 
think goes a long way to achieving these two very important goals of 
more parental involvement in the educational process, particularly in 
the area of vocational rehabilitation, as well as moving of the locus 
of power and authority more to the local level, where it is very much 
needed.

                              {time}  1330

  I rise in support of this as well as in support of the entire bill.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green.
  (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, Members, the manager's 
amendment is a new amendment that, again, this bill came out of 
committee 2 months ago with the idea that we were going to work on 
title V of the vocational rehabilitation section of the bill, and we 
have seen changes in the last 10 days. We really need more than a 
weekend to deal with this.
  But what the manager's amendment would do instead of cutting 
bureaucracy, which all of us want to do, and involve those parents 
involved in it, they are involved on the State level right 

[[Page H9167]]
now, the State of Texas does not need the Federal Government to tell us 
to involve parents in their vocational rehabilitation programs for 
their children.
  The amendment, the manager's amendment, would layer another 
bureaucracy because it would allow the Governor to appoint another 
agency to oversee the Federal funding. Again, in the general debate we 
heard that might be expanded to the legislative. But, again, that is 
not what I see in this manager's amendment that I have had a copy of 
that we got a copy of earlier.
  We want to reduce the bureaucracy. We do not want to add another 
layer in. That is why the manager's amendment raises concern.
  Again, title V of this bill, that substantially changes vocational 
rehabilitation, needs to be addressed separately in a separate piece of 
legislation and not in this, because we are going to lose some of the 
people who need it the most, people who need that vocational 
rehabilitation effort.
  I appreciate the concern of my colleague from Florida about parent 
involvement, and when I was in the legislature in Texas, we required 
parents to be involved with public schools. We required public schools 
to get their parents involved. But, again, we do not need the Federal 
Government here in Washington telling them in Austin, TX, or even in 
Tallahassee, they have to get involved. That is part of most States' 
plans already. Parents are involved. They should. But most of this 
money is State money. It is not Federal dollars.
  Let us leave those decisions locally. I would be glad to lobby my 
legislature to make sure they include parents because I know they 
already do, instead of saying we are going to impose a separate 
possible layer of bureaucracy on vocational rehabilitation. It is so 
important because we are dealing with, again, our citizens in this 
country who are harder to educate and harder to train and they are more 
expensive. We do not need to lose one dime to a bureaucracy that should 
be going to direct services for these people.
  That is why the manager's amendment again has made great strides in 
some ways but still does not go far enough to deal with the concerns 
that I have and a lot of my colleagues and a lot of the agencies or 
agencies and individuals that we have with vocational rehab.
  Let me read some of the individuals. You will see this yellow sheet 
today a great deal. American Council of the Blind, the American 
Foundation for the Blind, the National Federation for the Blind, the 
National Head Injury Foundation, the National Industries for the Blind, 
people who are opposing this bill and the manager's amendment because 
they are worried they are going to lose the basic support services that 
we have in Houston, TX, with the Lighthouse for the Blind that are 
serving a lot of my constituents.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to oppose the 
manager's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] has 30 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that both sides 
have an additional 6 minutes on the chairman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Six minutes to be divided, 3 minutes to each side?
  Mr. GOODLING. Six minutes either side, 12 minutes divided equally.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] has 6\1/
2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] has 8 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee].
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to address a question 
which affects the manager's amendment and what we do the rest of the 
day.
  I have prepared some amendments based upon the text of the bill, not 
necessarily based upon the text of the bill as amended by the manager's 
amendment. Will I be protected technically when I offer my amendments, 
in case they are not in the exact line or section? Will I be protected 
and have the assurance from the chairman that we can have whatever 
technical corrections need to be made before the bill is transmitted?
  Mr. GOODLING. I was waiting for a legal interpretation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair does advise Members that under the rule, it 
is an open amendment process. The Chair advises the gentleman from 
Michigan that it is an open amendment process.
  Mr. KILDEE. Well, no, my point is: We worked late last night 
preparing our amendments based upon the text of the bill that is before 
us. The manager's amendments have been offered and will probably be 
adopted. Our amendments may not be in the right exact line or section 
because of changes made by the manager's amendment. Will we be allowed 
to make those and have the Clerk make the necessary technical 
corrections to put those in a proper spot?
  Mr. GOODLING. If the gentleman will yield, I would say the gentleman 
would be able to. But it does become the text, and I would imagine, if 
these were written last night, they would have been written to my 
amendments.
  Mr. KILDEE. I did not have the manager's night amendments myself, 
however.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise both of the gentlemen that there 
will be situations where an amendment, as a result of a modification, 
may require modification in another portion of the bill, and that would 
be in order.
  Mr. KILDEE. It would be in order? In the engrossing of the bill, any 
technical corrections may be made by the motion we usually make at the 
end of the bill?
  The CHAIRMAN. You may redraft your amendments as the bill begins to 
change as a result of other amendments, if that is the question.
  Mr. KILDEE. We will try to keep up.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Graham], another member of the committee.
  (Mr. GRAHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, we are very close to passing what I think 
is the best bipartisan effort in Congress. I am really excited about 
what we have been able to do in the Committee on Economic and 
Educational Opportunities and work together to come up with a good 
product.
  One of the concerns I have had all along in the block granting 
program is that when we start the block grant, we do not tear down 
those things that work well. We know the problem areas. We made 
bipartisan effort to solve the problem areas.
  One thing I have been concerned about the whole time is vocational 
rehabilitation. This is a group of people that really we need to stand 
up for and make sure that they are protected.
  Let me tell you what we have done in this bill to make sure that voc 
rehab is protected. One, we did not cut any of the funding. The other 
three areas of the block grant had a 20-percent reduction in funding. 
Voc rehab stayed the same. The manager's amendment that the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] was talking about creates a system 
that would allow the Governor in the State to have an alternative 
program that, in effect, would allow the system in the State to 
continue as it is if it is delivering a quality product in the eyes of 
those people that are receiving it in the State, and the Governor 
responsible, for administering the services in the State.
  The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green, has been very good to work 
with. We are very close to getting an amendment that will allow this 
bill to go through in a bipartisan fashion. If we need some input from 
the State legislature, I am certainly open to that. Let us not turn 
back now. Most of the money does come from the Federal Government in 
the voc rehab area. There is a matching component that will not be 
changed by this bill on the States' behalf, but most of this money does 
come from the national Government. I think all of us, if we are honest 
with ourselves, will admit that voc rehab can be reformed.
  But the manager's amendment, I think, makes great strides to give 
local control and local authority to fashion programs that deliver the 
best services to the disabled in each and every State.
  One provision that I would like to point out of the alternative 
program, it 

[[Page H9168]]
requires the Governor to appoint to the board individuals with 
disabilities who are not State officials or employees, and they shall 
constitute a majority of the board that the Governor or the 
legislature, in conjunction with the Governor, will create.
  I think this is the right way to go. We cannot solve everybody's 
problems, but let us not get the bill off track because of this. I 
think we can work through the voc rehab problems.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me address my colleague, 
the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Graham], and the concerns that 
he has. I think we share some of them because we both served in the 
legislature, and I agree with him that I like the idea of having these 
boards to be including recipients of the aid. Again, that is, I know, 
in a lot of our local States we require that anyway. But is that a 
requirement that should be sent down from Washington?
  Again, I know I have worked on that, as a legislator, to make sure 
the people who are subjected to the rules are the ones also involved in 
the process and serving on those boards.
  Let me go over some of the concerns I have about the specifics of the 
manager's amendment as it deals with vocational rehab. The proposed 
amendment would allow, again, the Governor to appoint a board which 
would develop a plan for allocation of vocational rehab funds between 
the State and local boards. Again, we may change that, and it may be 
allowing the legislative involvement. As the manager's amendment now 
stands, it is the Governor. The Governor would appoint the board to 
develop it. It, again, creates another layer of bureaucracy.
  Different States could choose to implement vocational rehab programs 
in different ways, which that is the benefit of it because, again in 
Texas and South Carolina, although I think we have similar systems, but 
they are just a little different, to meet the local needs of our 
States. Some will opt for an alternative approval, while others can 
offer the approach prescribed elsewhere in this bill, and again we 
could then lose the national concern.
  So, again, I think vocational rehab needs to be separated from this 
bill, like the Senate is doing, and deal with vocational rehab on its 
own.
  Our committee held no hearings specifically on title V, and again 
last Thursday we had the majority staff release the changes of the 
markup to the bill. Now we have the manager's amendment, and we have 
not spent the time we need to on something as important as vocational 
rehab, that instead of just today and maybe the last few days, it 
should be as a separate piece of legislation.
  I think my colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina, and I could 
agree on a great deal of things as long as we do not lump people who 
are vocational rehab recipients in with the general population.

  Our State and a number of States for 50 years have contributed and 
made an effort to deal with vocational rehab and to provide funding for 
it, and they do not particularly want to see Washington come in and 
say, ``Well, we can do it better.'' I am concerned this bill may 
provide that guidance, and maybe set up a two-tier system, from what 
some States may be doing, and depending on what the Governor may decide 
to do, whether it is included in the legislation or not.
  This amendment would not address other problems that are in the full 
bill regarding vocational rehab services.
  Paragraph 105(B)(2)(d) of title V would continue to make the service 
plan optional, thereby removing program accountability for the 
direction and quality of the services. Again, we are on the floor of 
the House in Washington, DC, but the real people who need to know about 
this legislation, on the streets and in the facilities in Houston, TX 
and around this country, we want to make sure they are receiving that 
quality that they may not get if we pass this bill and this manager's 
amendment today.
  This bill would continue to not contain any mechanism for the States 
to control the quality and appropriateness of those vocational rehab 
services.
  That is why, again, Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposing the manager's 
amendment, and later on today we will have an amendment to title V that 
will strike title V and include and ask that vocational rehab be 
separated so we can get on to reforming our job training for everyone 
and not having vocational rehab recipients lost in this process, 
because that is my concern and that is the concern of a number of the 
groups who have been the beneficiaries of these services for many 
years.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  First of all, I would like to indicate there was a day of hearings on 
the vocational rehabilitation. I also would like to report that the 
Senate bill keeps vocational rehabilitation in its work force 
preparation bill. They have not changed their bill. They have kept 
vocational rehabilitation as part of it.
  I would also like to read from the legislation: ``The State will 
ensure that vocational rehabilitation services under this title, and 
related core services, are provided by personnel who are qualified to 
provide the services involved. For purposes of the preceding sentence, 
the term `core services' has the meaning indicated for such term under 
title I of the Consolidated and Reformed Education, Employment, and 
Rehabilitation Systems Act. The State will establish plans, policies, 
and procedures to be followed in carrying out the program under this 
title.'' In other words, the State must ensure quality standards and 
quality outcomes.
  But let me talk a little bit about the status quo, if that is all we 
want, if we just want to keep the status quo. Out of 12.6 million 
severely disabled persons, only 2.9 million are employed, which equals 
23 percent. Employment rates for persons with moderate disabilities are 
comparable with the nondisabled, but employment rates for the severely 
disabled are drastically lower.

                              {time}  1345

  Advocates for the status quo system cannot argue that VR is having a 
positive impact on employment. The employment rates have been constant 
during the life of the current Rehabilitation Act. A little over 1 
million persons are served under the current Federal-State Vocational 
Rehabilitation Program. Of those served, about 200,000 cases are closed 
in a given year. Many of these people could be served by the regular 
adult program, but the minute anyone mentions that they may have some 
disability, bingo, they are immediately shipped off to vocational 
rehabilitation. For the vocational rehabilitation system, rehabilitated 
means a 60-day job placement. Big deal. Under this low standard, even 
with only a 60-day job placement, they could only have 71 percent case 
closures in 1994.
  Now look at the success in comparison to tougher standards. Under the 
tougher Social Security Administration standards, a placement after 9 
months, for severely disabled persons on SSI or SSDI, only 9 percent of 
such case closures were still employed. The 1993 GAO report on the 
Vocational Rehabilitation Program concluded that the gains in economic 
status made by the clients were temporary. Is that what we are doing; 
throwing a bone to the most needy? Within the study group the earnings 
of those classified as rehabilitated under the 60-day standard had, 
after 2 years, returned to near or below preprogram levels.
  The Projects With Industries, PWI, program, a business community 
partnership placed 10,901 persons in 1994, 81 percent of whom were 
severely disabled. Of those served, 25 percent were severely disabled. 
PWI also costs far less than the current Federal-State program.
  So, the status quo advocates cannot argue that their success is 
demonstrated or that their expertise is unique. Actually success rates 
in serving the severely disabled have fallen somewhat in the last 2 
years.
  Of the total $2.5 billion in Federal and State match spent on VR 
costs are administration, 10.4 percent, counseling and placement, 34.6 
percent; purchased services, 54 percent. If we want the status quo and 
cheat these people, then just do not include them in the program.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].

[[Page H9169]]

  The amendment was agreed to.


                   amendment offered by mr. goodling

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment which affects 
portions of the bill not currently under consideration, and I ask 
unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Goodling: Page 70, line 24, before 
     the period insert ``or to meet federally funded or endorsed 
     industry-recognized skill standards or attain federally 
     funded or endorsed skill certificates''.
       Page 76, line 17, strike ``data'' and all that follows and 
     insert ``data, which may be aggregated by demographic 
     characteristics, on--''.
       Page 76, beginning on line 18, strike ``demographic'' and 
     all that follows through ``Act,'' on line 21.
       Page 81, beginning on line 18, strike ``furnished'' and all 
     that follows through ``identified'' on line 20, and insert 
     ``contained in the information so furnished under this title 
     can be used to identify any individual''.
       Page 82, line 2, insert ``for purposes'' after 
     ``retained''.
       Page 82, beginning on line 4, strike ``or establishment''.
       Page 98, line 24, after ``101'' strike ``or'' and insert 
     ``, 101A, 343(b),''.
       Page 100, line 15, before the period insert ``or to attain 
     a federally funded or endorsed skill certificate''.
       Page 110, line 19, insert ``and parents'' after 
     ``employers''.
       Page 113, line 10, insert ``and parents'' after 
     ``employers''.
       Page 125, line 6, strike ``and''.
       Page 125, line 9, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 125, after line 9, insert the following:
       (viii) implementation of innovative programs to increase 
     the number of individuals trained and placed in 
     nontraditional employment.
       Page 127, line 19, before the period insert the following: 
     ``and individuals seeking to enter nontraditional 
     employment''.
       Page 133, beginning on line 4, ``may have up to'' and 
     insert ``shall within''.
       Page 133, line 6, strike ``to''.

  Mr. GOODLING (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, this technical amendment includes changes 
to H.R. 1617 that are both constructive and noncontroversial, worked 
out by the other side, I believe, or in agreement. It is an amendment 
adding to a State's discretionary activities the ability to implement 
innovative programs to increase the number of individuals trained and 
placed in nontraditional employment, an amendment clarifying that 
nothing in this Act shall mandate that any individual, particularly 
youth, be required to meet federally funded or endorsed industry 
recognized skill standards or attain federally funded----
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLING. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, we have reviewed the amendments, and we have 
no objections.
  Mr. GOODLING. In other words, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is saying, 
``Stop talking; we agree.''
  Mr. CLAY. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. GOODLING. I will quit while I am ahead.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to section 2 of the bill?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 3.
  The text of section 3 is as follows:

     SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to transform the vast array of 
     Federal workforce development and literacy programs from a 
     collection of fragmented and duplicative categorical programs 
     into a streamlined, comprehensive, coherent, high-quality, 
     cost-effective, market-based, and accountable workforce 
     development and literacy system that is designed to meet the 
     education, economic, employment, and training needs of the 
     workforce and the competitiveness needs of employers of the 
     United States, both today and in the future.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 3?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 4.
  The test of section 4 is as follows:

     SEC. 4 AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated--
       (1) for title II, $2,324,600,000 for fiscal year 1997 and 
     such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 
     1998 through 2002 to carry out the programs under such title;
       (2) for title III, $2,183,000,000 for fiscal year 1997 and 
     such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 
     1998 through 2002 to carry out the programs under such title; 
     and
       (3) for subtitle A of title IV, $280,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 1997 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2002 to carry out the programs 
     under such subtitle.
       (b) Program Year.--
       (1) In general.--Beginning in fiscal year 1997, and each 
     year thereafter, appropriations for any fiscal year 
     thereafter, appropriations for any fiscal year for programs 
     and activities under titles II, III, and IV of this Act shall 
     be available for obligation only on the basis of a program 
     year. The program year shall begin on July 1 in the fiscal 
     year for which the appropriation is made.
       (2) Obligation.--Funds obligated for any program year under 
     titles II, III, and IV, may be expended by each recipient 
     during that program year and the two succeeding program 
     years, except that the Secretary shall, in accordance with 
     paragraph (3), reallot to eligible States the funds allotted 
     to States from funds appropriated for reallotment.
       (3) Amounts available for reallotment.--The amount 
     available for reallotment is equal to--
       (A) the amount by which the unobligated balance of the 
     State allotment at the end of the program year prior to the 
     program year for which the determination under this section 
     is made exceeds 20 percent of such allotment for the prior 
     program year; plus
       (B) the unexpended balance of the State allotment from any 
     program year prior to the program year in which there is such 
     excess.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 4?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 5.
  The text of section 5 is as follows:

     SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act, except as otherwise provided:
       (1) Adult.--The term ``adult'' means an individual who is 
     16 years of age, or beyond the age of compulsory school 
     attendance under State law (whichever age is higher), and who 
     is not enrolled or required to be enrolled in secondary 
     school.
       (2) Adult education.--The term ``adult education'' means 
     services or instruction below the postsecondary level for 
     adults--
       (A) who are not enrolled in secondary school;
       (B) who lack sufficient mastery of basic educational skills 
     to enable them to function effectively in society or who do 
     not have a certificate of graduation from a school providing 
     secondary education and who have not achieved an equivalent 
     level of education;
       (C) who are not currently required to be enrolled in 
     school; and
       (D) whose lack of mastery of basic skills results in an 
     inability to speak, read, or write the English language which 
     constitutes a substantial impairment of their ability to get 
     or retain employment commensurate with their real ability, 
     and thus are in need of programs to help eliminate such 
     inability and raise the level of education of such 
     individuals with a view to making them less likely to become 
     dependent on others.
       (3) Area vocational education school.--The term ``area 
     vocational education school'' means--
       (A) a specialized high school used exclusively or 
     principally for the provision of vocational education to 
     individuals who are available for study in preparation for 
     entering the labor market;
       (B) the department of a high school exclusively or 
     principally used for providing vocational education in not 
     less than 5 different occupational fields to individuals who 
     are available for study in preparation for entering the labor 
     market;
       (C) a technical institute or vocational school used 
     exclusively or principally for the provision of vocational 
     education to individuals who have completed or left high 
     school and who are available for study in preparation for 
     entering the labor market; or
       (D) the department or division of a junior college, 
     community college or university operating under the policies 
     of the State board and which provides vocational education in 
     not less than 5 different occupational fields leading to 
     immediate employment but not necessarily leading to a 
     baccalaureate degree, if, in the case of a school, 
     department, or division described in subparagraph (C) or this 
     subparagraph, it admits as regular students both individuals 
     who have completed high school and individuals who have left 
     high school.
       (4) At-risk youth.--The term ``at-risk youth'' means--
       (A) an out-of-school, at-risk youth who is an individual 
     age 24 or younger and who is not enrolled in a secondary or 
     postsecondary education program, has not received a high 
     school diploma or its equivalent and must overcome barriers 
     to employment such as 

[[Page H9170]]
     lack of sufficient education or vocational skills, economic 
     disadvantages, disability, or limited English proficiency; or
       (B) an in-school, at-risk youth who is an individual age 24 
     or younger who is enrolled in an accredited secondary or 
     postsecondary education program but is at risk of dropping 
     out of school or must overcome barriers to complete an 
     education program, such as economic disadvantages, 
     disability, or limited English proficiency.
       (5) Comprehensive career guidance and counseling.--The term 
     ``comprehensive career guidance and counseling'' means a 
     program--
       (A) which pertains to the body of subject matter and 
     related techniques and methods organized for the development 
     in individuals of career awareness, career planning, career 
     decisionmaking, placement skills, and knowledge and 
     understanding of local, State, and national occupational, 
     educational, and labor market needs, trends, and 
     opportunities;
       (B) which assists such individuals in making and 
     implementing informed educational and occupational choices; 
     and
       (C) which is comprehensive in nature.
       (6) Career grant.--The term ``career grant'' means a 
     voucher or a credit issued to a participant under title III 
     of this Act, or title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 
     for the purchase of education or training services from 
     certified providers of such services, in accordance with the 
     provisions of this Act, and with guidelines issued by the 
     State.
       (7) Case management.--The term ``case management'' means 
     the provision of a client-centered approach in the delivery 
     of services designed to--
       (A) empower individuals to make informed career choices;
       (B) prepare and coordinate comprehensive employment plans, 
     based upon such individual choices, such as service 
     strategies for participants, to ensure access to necessary 
     training and supportive services, using, where feasible, 
     computer-based technologies; and
       (C) provide job and career counseling during program 
     participation and after job placement.
       (8) Chief elected official.--The term ``chief elected 
     official'' means the chief elected executive officer of a 
     unit of general local government in a workforce development 
     area.
       (9) Community-based organization.--The term ``community-
     based organization'' means a private nonprofit organization 
     that is representative of a community or significant segments 
     of a community that provides or facilitates education, 
     vocational rehabilitation, job training, supportive services, 
     or internship services and programs.
       (10) Demographic characteristics.--The term ``demographic 
     characteristics'' means information on population, especially 
     with reference to size, density, distribution, and vital 
     statistics including, age, race, sex, ethnic origin, and 
     income status.
       (11) Dislocated worker.--The term ``dislocated worker'' 
     means an individual who--
       (A) has been terminated or laid off or who has received a 
     notice of termination or layoff from employment, is eligible 
     for or has exhausted entitlement to unemployment 
     compensation, and is unlikely to return to a previous 
     industry or occupation;
       (B) has been terminated, or has received a notice of 
     termination of employment, as a result of any permanent 
     closure of, or any substantial layoff at, a plant, facility, 
     or enterprise;
       (C) has been unemployed long-term and has limited 
     opportunities for employment or reemployment in the same or a 
     similar occupation in the area in which such individual 
     resides, including an older individual who may have 
     substantial barriers to employment by reason of age; or
       (D) was self-employed (including farmers and ranchers) but 
     is unemployed as a result of general economic conditions in 
     the community in which they reside or because of natural 
     disasters.
       (12) Displaced homemaker.--The term ``displaced homemaker'' 
     means an individual who--
       (A) is an adult; and
       (B)(i) has worked as an adult primarily without 
     remuneration to care for the home and family, and for that 
     reason has diminished marketable skills;
       (ii) has been dependent on public assistance or on the 
     income of a relative but is no longer supported by such 
     income; or
       (iii) is a parent whose youngest dependent child will 
     become ineligible to receive assistance under the program for 
     aid to families with dependent children under part A of title 
     IV of the Social Security Act within 2 years of the parent's 
     application for assistance under title II of this Act.
       (13) Earnings.--The term ``earnings'' means gross hourly 
     wages before any deduction, plus the estimated hourly value 
     of bonuses, tips, gratuities, commissions, and overtime pay 
     either expected or received. In the case of individuals in 
     subsidized employment, total hourly earnings include any wage 
     subsidy paid to the individual.
       (14) Economic development agencies.--The term ``economic 
     development agencies'' means State and local planning and 
     zoning commissions or boards, community development agencies, 
     and other State and local agencies and institutions 
     responsible for regulating, promoting, or assisting in State 
     and local economic development.
       (15) Economically disadvantaged.--The term ``economically 
     disadvantaged'' means an individual who--
       (A) receives, or is a member of a family which receives, 
     cash welfare payments under a Federal, State, or local 
     welfare program;
       (B) has, or is a member of a family which has, received a 
     total family income for the 6-month period prior to 
     application for the program involved (exclusive of 
     unemployment compensation, child support payments, and 
     welfare payments) which, in relation to family size, was not 
     in excess of the higher of--
       (i) the official poverty line (as defined by the Office of 
     Management and Budget, and revised annually in accordance 
     with section 673(2) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 
     of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)), or
       (ii) 70 percent of the lower living standard income level;
       (C) is receiving (or has been determined within the 6-month 
     period prior to the application for the program involved to 
     be eligible to receive) food stamps pursuant to the Food 
     Stamp Act of 1977;
       (D) qualifies as a homeless individual under subsections 
     (a) and (c) of section 103 of the Stewart B. McKinney 
     Homeless Assistance Act;
       (E) is a foster child on behalf of whom State or local 
     government payments are made;
       (F) in cases permitted by regulations of the Secretary, is 
     an individual with a disability whose own income meets the 
     requirements of subparagraph (A) or (B), but who is a member 
     of a family whose income does not meet such requirements; or
       (G) is an individual meeting appropriate criteria approved 
     by a State.
       (16) Educational service agency.--The term ``educational 
     service agency'' means a regional public multiservice agency 
     authorized by State statute to develop, manage, and provide 
     services or programs to local educational agencies, and is 
     recognized as an administrative agency for such State's 
     vocational or technical education schools or for vocational 
     programs within its public elementary or secondary schools. 
     Such term includes any other public institution or agency 
     having administrative control and direction over a public 
     elementary or secondary school.
       (17) Employed.--The term ``employed'' means an individual 
     who is currently--
       (A) a paid employee;
       (B) works in his or her own business, profession, or farm;
       (C) works 15 hours or more per week as an unpaid worker in 
     an enterprise operated by a family member or is one who is 
     not working, but has a job or business from which he or she 
     is temporarily absent due to illness, bad weather, vacation, 
     labor-management dispute, or personal reasons; or
       (D) on active military duty.
       (18) English literacy program.--The term ``English literacy 
     program'' means a program of instruction designed to help 
     limited English proficient adults, out-of-school youths, or 
     both, achieve full competence in the English language.
       (19) Excess number.--The term ``excess number'' means, with 
     respect to the excess number of unemployed individuals within 
     a State, the number that represents the number of unemployed 
     individuals in excess of 4.5 percent of the civilian labor 
     force in the State, or the number that represents the number 
     of unemployed individuals in excess of 4.5 percent of the 
     civilian labor force in areas of substantial unemployment in 
     such State.
       (20) Family and consumer sciences.--The term ``family and 
     consumer sciences'' means instructional programs, services, 
     and activities which prepare students for personal, family, 
     community, and career roles.
       (21) Governor.--The term ``Governor'' means the chief 
     executive of a State.
       (22) Individual of limited english proficiency.--The term 
     ``individual of limited English proficiency'' means an adult 
     or out-of-school youth who has limited ability in speaking, 
     reading, writing, or understanding the English language and--
       (A) whose native language is a language other than English; 
     or
       (B) who lives in a family or community environment where a 
     language other than English is the dominant language.
       (23) Individuals with disabilities.--The term ``individuals 
     with disabilities'' has the meaning given such term in the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
       (24) Institution of higher education.--The term 
     ``institution of higher education'' has the meaning given 
     such term in section 481 of the Higher Education Act of 1965.
       (25) Job search assistance.--The term ``job search 
     assistance'' means a service that helps a job-ready 
     individual seek, locate, apply for, and obtain employment. 
     Such services may include, job-finding skills, orientation to 
     the labor market, resume preparation assistance, job finding 
     clubs, job search workshops, vocational exploration, and 
     other employability services.
       (26) Labor market area.--The term ``labor market area'' 
     means an economically integrated geographic area within which 
     individuals can reside and find employment within a 
     reasonable distance or can readily change employment without 
     changing their place of residence. Such areas shall be 
     identified in accordance with criteria used by the Bureau of 
     Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor in defining such 
     areas or similar criteria established by a Governor.
       (27) Library.--The term ``library'' includes--
       (A) a public library; 

[[Page H9171]]

       (B) a public elementary or secondary school library;
       (C) an academic library;
       (D) a research library; and
       (E) a private library, but only if the State in which such 
     private library is located determines that the library should 
     be considered a library for purposes of this Act.
       (28) Literacy.--The term ``literacy'' means an individual's 
     ability to read, write, and speak in English, and compute and 
     solve problems, at levels of proficiency necessary--
       (A) to function on the job, in the individual's family and 
     in society;
       (B) to achieve the individual's goals; and
       (C) to develop the individual's knowledge potential.
       (29) Local educational agency.--The term ``local 
     educational agency'' has the same meaning given such term in 
     section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965.
       (30) Migrant farmworker.--The term ``migrant farmworker'' 
     means a seasonal farmworker whose farm work requires travel 
     such that the worker is unable to return to a permanent place 
     of residence within the same day.
       (31) Native american.--The term ``native American'' means 
     Indians, Alaskan natives, and Hawaiian natives.
       (32) Nontraditional employment.--The term ``nontraditional 
     employment'' as applied to women refers to occupations or 
     fields of work where women comprise less than 25 percent of 
     the individuals employed in such occupation or field of work.
       (33) On-the-job training.--The term ``on-the-job training'' 
     means training in the public or private sector that is 
     provided to a paid employee while engaged in productive work 
     that--
       (A) provides knowledge or skills essential to the full and 
     adequate performance of the job;
       (B) provides reimbursement to employers, up to 50 percent 
     of the participant's wage rate, for the extraordinary costs 
     of providing training and additional supervision; and
       (C) is based on the Occupational Employment Statistics 
     Program Dictionary.
       (34) Postsecondary educational institution.--The term 
     ``postsecondary educational institution'' means an 
     institution of higher education (as such term is defined in 
     section 481 of the Higher Education Act of 1965) which 
     continues to meet the eligibility and certification 
     requirements under title IV of such Act (20 U.S.C. 1070 et 
     seq.).
       (35) Preemployment skills training; job readiness skills 
     training.--The terms ``preemployment skills training'' and 
     ``job readiness skills training'' mean training that builds 
     on family efforts to help prepare individuals for work by 
     assuring that they are familiar with general workplace 
     expectations and exhibit work behavior and attitudes 
     necessary to compete successfully in the job market.
       (36) Public assistance.--The term ``public assistance'' 
     means Federal, State, or local government cash payments for 
     which eligibility is determined by a needs or income test.
       (37) Rapid response.--The term ``rapid response'' means 
     assistance that is directly provided by the State, or by 
     local grantees with funds provided by the State, in the case 
     of mass layoffs or plant closures, and that establishes on-
     site contact with employer and employee representatives 
     within a short period of time (preferably 48 hours or less) 
     after becoming aware of a current or projected permanent 
     closure or substantial layoff in order to--
       (A) provide information on, and facilitate access to, 
     available public programs and services for workers losing 
     jobs as a result of such layoff or closure;
       (B) provide emergency assistance adapted to the particular 
     closure or layoff;
       (C) promote the formation of labor-management committees, 
     where appropriate;
       (D) collect information related to economic dislocation and 
     available resources within the State for dislocated workers;
       (E) provide or obtain appropriate financial and technical 
     advice and liaison with economic development agencies and 
     other organizations to assist in efforts to avert worker 
     dislocation; and
       (F) assist the local community in developing its own 
     coordinated response and in obtaining access to State 
     economic development assistance.
       (38) Registered apprenticeship.--The term ``registered 
     apprenticeship'' means a program registered by the Bureau of 
     Apprenticeship and Training in the United States Department 
     of Labor, or a State Apprenticeship Agency recognized and 
     approved by the Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training as the 
     appropriate body for State registration or approval of local 
     apprenticeship programs and agreements.
       (39) School dropout.--The term ``school dropout'' means a 
     youth who is no longer attending any school and who has not 
     received a secondary school diploma or a certificate from a 
     program of equivalency for such a diploma.
       (40) Seasonal farmworker.--The term ``seasonal farmworker'' 
     means a person who during the eligibility determination 
     period (12 consecutive months out of 24 months prior to 
     application) has been primarily employed in farm work that is 
     characterized by chronic unemployment or under employment.
       (41) Skill certificate.--The term ``skill certificate'' 
     means a portable, industry-recognized credential achieved 
     through programs authorized under this Act, that certifies 
     that an individual has mastered occupational skills at levels 
     that are at least as challenging as skill standards endorsed 
     by the National Skill Standards Board, except that until such 
     skill standards are developed, the term ``skill certificate'' 
     means a credential issued under a process endorsed by the 
     State, based upon established industry standards and 
     benchmarks.
       (42) State.--The term ``State'' means any of the several 
     States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
       (43) State educational agency.--The term ``State 
     educational agency'' has the meaning given such term in 
     section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965.
       (44) State library administrative agency.--The term ``State 
     library administrative agency'' means the official agency of 
     a State charged by the law of the State with the extension 
     and development of public library services throughout the 
     State.
       (45) Supportive services.--The term ``supportive services'' 
     means services which are necessary to enable an individual 
     eligible for training under this Act, but who cannot afford 
     to pay for such services, to participate in a training or 
     vocational rehabilitation program or job search activities 
     funded under this Act. Such supportive services may include 
     transportation, individual and family counseling, child care 
     and dependent care, meals, temporary shelter, financial 
     counseling, needs-based payments, and other reasonable 
     expenses required for participation in a training, job 
     preparation, or job placement program. Such services may be 
     provided in-kind or through cash assistance, except that such 
     services will be provided with funds provided under this Act 
     only after alternative funding sources specifically 
     designated for such services have been exhausted.
       (46) Unemployed.--The term ``unemployed'' refers to an 
     individual who is not employed, who is available for work, 
     and who has made specific efforts to find a job within the 
     prior 4 weeks. Included as unemployed are individuals who are 
     not working, are available for work, and are waiting to be 
     called back to a job from which they have been laid off.
       (47) Unit of general local government.--The term ``unit of 
     general local government'' means any general purpose 
     political subdivision of a State which has the power to levy 
     taxes and spend funds, as well as general corporate and 
     police powers.
       (48) Veteran.--The term ``veteran'' has the meaning given 
     such term in section 101(2) of title 38, United States Code.
       (49) Work experience.--The term ``work experience'' means a 
     time-limited work activity that provides an individual with 
     the opportunity to acquire the general skills and knowledge 
     necessary to obtain employment.
       (50) Workplace mentor.--The term ``workplace mentor'' means 
     an employee or other individual, approved by the employer at 
     a workplace, who possesses the skills and knowledge to be 
     mastered by a student or program participant, and who 
     instructs, critiques the performance, and challenges the 
     student or program participant to perform well, and works in 
     consultation with classroom teachers, training providers, 
     parents, and the employer of the student or program 
     participant.
       (51) Youth.--The term ``youth'' means an individual under 
     the age of 24.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 5?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 6.
  The text of section 6 is as follows:

     SEC. 6. TRANSITION.

       The Secretary of Education and the Secretary of Labor shall 
     take such steps as they determine to be appropriate to 
     provide for the orderly transition from any authority under 
     provisions of statutes amended or repealed by this Act or any 
     related authority under provisions of this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 6?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title I.
  The text of title I is as follows:
             TITLE I--WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT INFRASTRUCTURE

     SEC. 101. PURPOSE OF TITLE.

       The purpose of this title is to provide for the 
     establishment of an infrastructure within States on which to 
     build a comprehensive system of workforce development and 
     literacy.
              Subtitle A--State and Local Responsibilities

     SEC. 102. STATE REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--For fiscal year 1997 and subsequent fiscal 
     years, a State that desires to receive a grant under one or 
     more of the programs specified in subsection (b) shall--
       (1) establish a collaborative process, pursuant to section 
     103;
       (2) develop a State workforce development and literacy 
     plan, pursuant to section 104; and
       (3) otherwise comply with the requirements of this Act.
       (b) Workforce Development and Literacy Programs.--
       (1) In general.--The programs referred to in subsection (a) 
     are the following: 

[[Page H9172]]

       (A) The program under title II, the Youth Development and 
     Career Preparation Consolidation Grant.
       (B) The program under title III, the Adult Employment and 
     Training Consolidation Grant.
       (C) The program under subtitle A of title IV, the Adult 
     Education and Family Literacy Consolidation Grant.
       (D) The program amended by subtitle A of title V (relating 
     to title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973).
       (2) Definition.--For purposes of this Act, the term 
     ``Workforce Development and Literacy programs'' means the 
     programs specified in paragraph (1).

     SEC. 103. COLLABORATIVE PROCESS REGARDING STATE SYSTEM.

       (a) In General.--The Governor of a State that desires to 
     receive a grant under one or more of the programs specified 
     in section 102(b) shall certify to the Secretary of Education 
     and the Secretary of Labor that a collaborative process, as 
     described in subsection (b) or (c), has been used in 
     complying with the applicable provisions of this Act.
       (b) Collaborative Process.--The collaborative process 
     referred to in subsection (a) is a process for making 
     decisions which includes as participants, at a minimum, the 
     Governor and--
       (1) representatives of (which representatives are appointed 
     by the Governor)--
       (A) business and industry;
       (B) local chief elected officials (representing both cities 
     and counties);
       (C) local educational agencies (including vocational 
     educators);
       (D) postsecondary institutions (including community and 
     technical colleges);
       (E) the State rehabilitation advisory council;
       (F) organizations representing individuals served by 
     programs established under this Act (including community-
     based organizations);
       (G) employees;
       (H) Parents or organizations representing parents; and
       (I) providers of workforce development services (including 
     private-for-profit sector providers); and
       (2) the lead State agency official or officials for--
       (A) the State educational agency or agencies (including the 
     lead official or officials for vocational education, adult 
     education and literacy, and libraries);
       (B) the State agency responsible for economic development;
       (C) the State agency or agencies responsible for employment 
     security and for job training;
       (D) the State agency responsible for postsecondary 
     education;
       (E) the State agency responsible for vocational 
     rehabilitation, and where applicable, the State agency 
     providing vocational rehabilitation services for the blind;
       (F) the State agency responsible for administering welfare 
     benefits; and
       (G) the representative of the Veterans' Service assigned to 
     the State under section 4103 of title 38, United States Code.
       (c) Rule of Construction.--With respect to compliance with 
     subsection (b)--
       (1) a State may use any existing State process (including 
     any council or similar entity) that substantially meets the 
     purposes of such subsection; or
       (2) if prior to the date of enactment of this Act, a State 
     has developed a one-stop career center system or a school-to-
     work system through a collaborative process substantially 
     similar to the process described in subsection (b), the State 
     may use such process.
       (d) Authority of Governor.--
       (1) Final authority.--If, after a reasonable effort, a 
     Governor is unable to obtain agreement through the 
     collaborative process described in subsection (b) or (c), the 
     Governor shall have final authority to make decisions and to 
     submit the State plan as described under section 104.
       (2) Exception.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to 
     negate or supersede the legal authority, under State law of 
     any State agency, State entity, or State public official over 
     programs that are under the jurisdiction of the agency, 
     entity, or official. Nothing in this Act shall be construed 
     to interfere with the authority of such agency, entity, or 
     official to enter into a contract under any provision of law.

     SEC. 104. CONSOLIDATED STATE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AND 
                   LITERACY PLAN.

       (a) In General.--The Governor of a State that desires to 
     receive a grant under one or more of the programs specified 
     in section 102(b) shall submit a strategic State workforce 
     development and literacy plan that provides policy guidance 
     with respect to workforce development programs operated in 
     the State, and that meets the requirements of this section to 
     the Secretary of Education and the Secretary of Labor.
       (b) Contents.--A State workforce development and literacy 
     plan shall include the following:
       (1) A description of the collaborative process under 
     section 103 used in developing the plan.
       (2) A statement of the goals of the State workforce 
     development and literacy system, that includes--
       (A) a description of how the State will progress toward 
     achieving the goals and purpose of this Act as established in 
     sections 3(a)(5) and 3(b);
       (B) an assessment of the needs of the State with regard to 
     current and projected demands for workers by occupation, the 
     skills and education levels of the workforce, the vocational 
     rehabilitation needs of individuals with severe disabilities 
     residing in the State, the skill and economic development 
     needs of the State, and an assessment of the type and 
     availability of youth development and career preparation, 
     workforce development, adult education, vocational 
     rehabilitation, and literacy programs and services in the 
     State; and
       (C) the identification of progress indicators, based on the 
     core indicators of performance described in section 110(f), 
     built upon a model of continuous improvement, that the State 
     will use to measure progress made by the State, local 
     workforce development boards, and other applicable local 
     entities who are recipients of financial assistance under 
     this Act in meeting such goals;
       (3) A description of how the State has complied, or will 
     comply, with the provisions of sections 105 through 108.
       (4) A description of how a State will participate in the 
     national labor market information system under title II of 
     the Wagner-Peyser Act, as added by section 132 of this Act.
       (5) Any information required to be included in the plan 
     under any of titles II through IV, and title I of the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973, (in the case of a State that 
     desires to receive a grant under any such title).
       (6) A description of the measures that will be taken by the 
     State to ensure coordination and consistency and avoid 
     duplication among programs receiving assistance under this 
     Act, including a description of common data collection and 
     reporting processes.
       (7) A description of the process used by the State to 
     provide an opportunity for public comment, and input into the 
     development of the plan, prior to submission of the plan.
       (8) A description of the process used by the State to 
     consult with representatives of business and industry with 
     respect to the requirements of subparagraphs (A), (B), and 
     (C) of paragraph (2) of this subsection.
       (9) Assurances that the State will provide for fiscal 
     control and fund accounting procedures that may be necessary 
     to ensure the proper disbursement of, and accounting for, 
     funds paid to the State under this Act.
       (10) A description of the sanctions which the State may 
     impose (including restrictions from future participation or 
     consideration for funding) in instances where recipients of 
     funds under this Act fail to achieve agreed upon expected 
     performance levels, fail to adhere to State mandated fiscal 
     control and funds accounting procedures, or take or fail to 
     take other actions required under the State plan, contracts, 
     or other agreements.
       (c) Disagreement.--The Governor shall accept and include 
     with the plan submitted under subsection (a) any disagreeing 
     views submitted by a participant of the collaborative process 
     if such views represent disagreement in the area in which 
     such participant was selected for representation.
       (d) Modifications to Plan.--A plan submitted by a State in 
     accordance with this section remains in effect until the 
     State submits to the Secretary such modifications as the 
     State determines necessary. This section applies to the 
     modifications to the same extent and in the same manner as 
     this section applies to the original plan.

     SEC. 105. ESTABLISHMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AREAS.

       The Governor of a State that desires to receive a grant 
     under one or more of the programs specified in section 102(b) 
     shall, through the collaborative process established under 
     section 103 and after consultation with local chief elected 
     officials, and after consideration of comments received 
     through the public participation process as described in the 
     State plan, designate local workforce development areas 
     within the State taking into consideration the following:
       (1) Existing labor market areas.
       (2) Units of general local government.
       (3) Geographic areas served by local educational agencies 
     and intermediate educational agencies.
       (4) Geographic areas served by postsecondary institutions 
     and area vocational education schools.
       (5) Service delivery areas established under section 101 of 
     the Job Training Partnership Act (29 U.S.C. 1511) (as such 
     Act was in effect on the day before the date of the enactment 
     of this Act).
       (6) The distance that individuals will need to travel to 
     receive services from integrated career centers.

     SEC. 106. PROVISIONS REGARDING LOCAL WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT 
                   BOARDS.

       (a) In General.--The Governor of a State that desires to 
     receive a grant under one or more of the programs specified 
     in section 102(b) shall ensure the establishment of a local 
     workforce development board in each local workforce 
     development area within the State.
       (b) State Criteria.--The Governor, through the 
     collaborative process described under section 103, is 
     authorized to establish criteria for use by local chief 
     elected officials in the workforce development area, in the 
     selection of members of local workforce development boards, 
     in accordance with requirements prescribed under subsections 
     (c) and (d).
       (c) Representation Requirement.--Such criteria shall 
     require, at a minimum, that a local workforce development 
     board consist of-- 

[[Page H9173]]

       (1) a majority of members who are representatives of 
     business and industry, including individuals who are owners 
     of businesses, chief executives or chief operating officers 
     of private business, and other business executives with 
     optimum policymaking authority in local businesses, selected 
     from among nominees submitted by local business organizations 
     and trade associations;
       (2) an individual or individuals with disabilities, who 
     have special knowledge or expertise in the area of vocational 
     rehabilitation;
       (3) representatives of education and training, including 
     local educational agencies, postsecondary education 
     institutions, and providers of job training and workforce 
     development services, selected from among individuals 
     nominated by regional or local educational agencies, 
     vocational education institutions, institutions of 
     postsecondary education (including community colleges), 
     providers of job training and workforce development services 
     (including private-for-profit providers), within the 
     workforce development area; and
       (4) representatives of community-based organizations, 
     employees, and veterans as nominated or recommended to the 
     board through a process established by the Governors through 
     the collaborative process.
       (d) Establishment of Board.--
       (1) Selection of board members.--
       (A) Single unit of local government in area.--In the case 
     of a workforce development area that is comprised of only one 
     unit of general local government, the chief elected official 
     of such unit is authorized to select the members of the local 
     workforce development board for such area, in accordance with 
     the State criteria developed pursuant to subsection (b).
       (B) Multiple units in area.--In the case of a workforce 
     development area that is comprised of more than one unit of 
     general local government, the chief elected officials of such 
     units are authorized to select the members of the local 
     workforce development board from the individuals so nominated 
     or recommended for such area in accordance with an agreement 
     entered into by such officials and with the State criteria 
     developed under subsection (b). In the absence of such an 
     agreement, the appointments are authorized to be made by the 
     Governor, through the collaborative process, from the 
     individuals so nominated or recommended.
       (2) Certification.--The Governor is authorized to 
     biennially certify one local workforce development board for 
     each workforce development area.
       (3) Exception.--In any case in which a local workforce 
     development area is a State, the individuals comprising the 
     Governor's collaborative process as described in section 103, 
     may be reconstituted to meet the requirements of this 
     section.
       (e) Duties of Local Workforce Development Board.--
       (1) Local workforce development plan.--Each local workforce 
     development board shall develop a biennial strategic plan and 
     provide policy guidance with respect to workforce development 
     programs operated within their respective workforce 
     development areas. Such strategic plan shall be consistent 
     with the State's collaborative workforce development and 
     literacy plan, be approved by the appropriate chief elected 
     official or officials, and be submitted to the Governor for 
     approval. If after a reasonable effort, a local workforce 
     development board is unable to obtain the approval of the 
     chief elected official or officials, the Board has the 
     authority to forward the plan, with the comments of the chief 
     elected official or officials, to the Governor for final 
     approval or disapproval. Such local plan shall include the 
     following:
       (A) Both short-term and long-term goals, and related 
     strategies, to ensure that workforce preparation and 
     development programs, including programs established pursuant 
     to this Act, title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and 
     the Wagner-Peyser Act, contribute to a coherent workforce 
     development system in the workforce development area.
       (B) A description of the performance measures to be used by 
     the local workforce development board for measuring the 
     performance of local service providers under chapter 2 of 
     title II, title III, and title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 
     1973, and the performance of integrated career center system 
     operators, with whom the Board contracts.
       (C) A description of the local integrated career center 
     system to be established in the workforce development area, 
     including--
       (i) a description of the process the local workforce 
     development board will use to designate or establish a career 
     center system which ensures that the most effective and 
     efficient service providers are chosen;
       (ii) an identification of the roles of individual workforce 
     development programs and programs authorized by the Wagner-
     Peyser Act; and
       (iii) a description of the funding sources to be used in 
     the operation of the career center system.
       (D) A description of strategies the local workforce 
     development board will undertake to fully involve local 
     employers, local educational agencies, postsecondary 
     education institutions, adult education and literacy 
     providers, local service providers, parents and other 
     consumers, including individuals with disabilities, and older 
     workers in the development of the workforce development 
     system.
       (F) Such other information as requested by the State.
       (2) Identification of occupations in demand and training 
     needs.--The local workforce development board shall use 
     available labor market information and other appropriate 
     methods in order to identify and assess the needs of the 
     workforce development area.
       (3) Budget and program oversight.--
       (A) Budgeting.--
       (i) The local workforce development board, working through 
     the State administrative agent, shall develop a budget for 
     the purpose of carrying out local programs established under 
     chapter 2 of title II, title III, and title I of the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and for integrated career center 
     systems established or designated under section 107 with the 
     exception of funds made available under the Wagner-Peyser 
     Act.
       (ii) Such budget shall be subject to the approval of the 
     appropriate chief elected official or officials in the 
     workforce development area.
       (B) Program oversight.--The local workforce development 
     board, in partnership with the chief elected official or 
     officials in the workforce development area, shall conduct 
     oversight of the workforce development programs listed in 
     subparagraph (A), and of the integrated career center system 
     established under this title.
       (4) Administration.--
       (A) Fiscal agent.--
       (i) The local workforce development board may receive and 
     disburse funds made available for carrying out programs 
     authorized under chapter 2 of title II, title III, and title 
     I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 of this Act, or the local 
     workforce development board may designate a fiscal agent 
     (which may include the State through a mutual agreement 
     between the local board and the State), for the purpose of 
     disbursement of funds to career centers and other service 
     providers, as designated by the local workforce development 
     board.
       (ii) The Board may employ its own staff, independent of 
     local programs and service providers, and may solicit or 
     accept grants and contributions from sources other than from 
     this Act.
       (B) Limitation.--The workforce development board, or 
     employees of such board, may not operate programs established 
     under this Act. The Governor is authorized to prohibit the 
     employees of agencies providing staff support to such local 
     workforce development boards from providing workforce 
     development services to individuals served through the use of 
     funds authorized under this Act, and under title I of the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
       (C) Conflict of interest.--A member of a workforce 
     development board may not--
       (i) discuss or participate in board consideration; or
       (ii) cast a vote;

     regarding the provision of services by such member (or by an 
     organization that such member represents) or regarding any 
     matter that would provide direct financial benefit to such 
     member. The Governor may enforce more rigorous conflict of 
     interest standards, as determined appropriate.
       (D) Independent authority.--
       (i) The Board shall elect its own chairperson from among 
     the members of the board.
       (ii) The board may adopt bylaws and other operating 
     procedures as consistent with the purposes of this Act, and 
     with the policies established in the State workforce 
     development and literacy plan.
       (5) Other.--The Governor may require local workforce 
     development boards to carry out such other duties as 
     determined to be appropriate by the Governor and the 
     individuals and entities described in section 103, through 
     the collaborative process described in the State plan.

     SEC. 107. ESTABLISHMENT OF INTEGRATED CAREER CENTER SYSTEMS.

       (a) In General.--The Governor of a State that desires to 
     receive a grant under one or more of the programs specified 
     in section 102(b) shall ensure that each local workforce 
     development board establish or designate an integrated career 
     center system in the workforce development area of such 
     board, consistent with criteria established under subsection 
     (b).
       (b) State Criteria.--The Governor, through the 
     collaborative process described under section 103, is 
     authorized to establish statewide criteria for use by local 
     workforce development boards in the designation or 
     establishment of integrated career center systems to ensure 
     that the most effective and efficient service providers are 
     chosen, consistent with the requirements prescribed under 
     subsection (c).
       (c) Integrated Career Center System Requirements.--At a 
     minimum, integrated career center systems shall include--
       (1) common intake;
       (2) preliminary assessment;
       (3) integrated job search assistance;
       (4) to the extent practicable, as determined by the 
     Governor, unified and linked computer systems, including the 
     availability of labor market information as described under 
     title II of the Wagner-Peyser Act, as added by section 132 of 
     this Act, and linkages through uniform management information 
     systems; and
       (5) to the extent practicable, as determined by the 
     Governor, at least one physical, co-located site which 
     provides comprehensive and fully integrated workforce 
     development services to any individual seeking such services.


[[Page H9174]]

     Local workforce development areas are encouraged to establish 
     a network of comprehensive and fully-integrated co-located 
     career centers to provide the services described in 
     subsection (f), supplemented with multiple affiliated sites 
     or satellites that provide one or more of such services and 
     are linked through electronic and technological access 
     points. Such affiliated sites may include entities designated 
     as having a specialization in addressing special needs, such 
     as the needs of individuals with disabilities.
       (d) Common Access.--Information pertaining to the labor 
     market which is compiled pursuant to title II of the Wagner-
     Peyser Act, as added by section 132 of this Act, shall be 
     available, to the extent practicable, through integrated 
     electronic networks, at all integrated career centers and 
     affiliated sites.
       (e) Eligibility for Designation.--Any entity or consortium 
     of entities located in the workforce development area may be 
     designated by the local workforce development board to 
     operate an integrated career center or to participate in an 
     integrated career center system. Such entities may include 
     the following:
       (1) Institutions of higher education.
       (2) Area vocational education schools.
       (3) Local employment service offices, established under the 
     Wagner-Peyser Act.
       (4) Private nonprofit organizations, (including community-
     based organizations).
       (5) Private for-profit entities.
       (6) Agencies of local governments.
       (7) Other interested organizations and entities of 
     demonstrated effectiveness, including local chambers of 
     commerce and other business organizations, consistent with 
     State criteria established pursuant to subsection (b).
       (f) Duties.--Each integrated career center system shall, to 
     the extent practicable as determined by the Governor, carry 
     out the following duties:
       (1) Provision of core services.--An integrated career 
     center system shall make available the following information 
     and core services to individuals on a universal and 
     nondiscriminatory basis, with reasonable accommodations to 
     address the needs of individuals with disabilities, in the 
     workforce development area in which such center is located:
       (A) Outreach and intake for services provided under chapter 
     2 of title II, title III, subtitle A of title IV, and title I 
     of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
       (B) A preliminary assessment of the skill levels and the 
     need for services of the individual for programs under 
     chapter 2 of title II, title III, subtitle A of title IV, and 
     title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 of individuals, 
     which may include such factors as basic skills, occupational 
     skills, career development skills, prior work experience, 
     employability, interests, aptitudes, vocational 
     rehabilitation needs, and supportive service needs.
       (C) Labor market information relating to local and State, 
     and if appropriate, to regional or national, occupations in 
     demand and skill requirements for such occupations, including 
     job listings for the local labor market.
       (D) Information relating to youth services, including 
     information on at-risk youth development and career 
     preparation programs authorized under title II, on vocational 
     education and school-to-work opportunities, and on youth 
     apprenticeship opportunities.
       (E) Career counseling and career planning based on a 
     preliminary assessment of the individual.
       (F) Job search assistance.
       (G) Information related to vocational rehabilitation 
     services, as provided for in title I of the Rehabilitation 
     Act of 1973.
       (H) Information relating to federally funded education and 
     job training programs (including registered apprenticeships), 
     and student aid programs, including the eligibility 
     requirements of and services provided by such programs.
       (I) Information on, and assistance in accessing referral to 
     additional services through programs providing adult 
     education and literacy services, vocational rehabilitation, 
     youth and adult workforce preparation and development, and 
     supportive services, including those programs authorized in 
     titles II through IV, title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 
     1973, available in the workforce development area.
       (J) Information on the extent to which the services 
     provided under titles II and III, subtitle A of title IV, and 
     title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, meet or exceed the 
     expected levels of performance described in the State and 
     local plans, and the performance-based information provided 
     by the State to local workforce development boards on 
     certified providers of education and training, as required 
     under section 108(d)(3).
       (K) Acceptance of applications for unemployment 
     compensation.
       (L) Other appropriate activities to assist individuals into 
     employment.
       (2) Distribution of career grants.--A center or an 
     affiliated site may serve as the point of distribution of 
     career grants for education, training, and vocational 
     rehabilitation services to eligible individuals in accordance 
     with section 108.
       (3) Special arrangements.--For the purpose of providing 
     core services to individuals with severe disabilities in the 
     most effective and efficient manner possible, the integrated 
     career center system may arrange to have such core services 
     provided to an individual by a certified provider or the 
     State either on a contract basis or through the use of career 
     grants.
       (g) Additional Services.--Integrated career center systems, 
     may provide customized workforce development services to 
     employers on a fee-for-service basis, as determined by the 
     local workforce development board.
       (h) Alternative State Strategy.--Through the collaborative 
     process described in section 103, the Governor has the 
     authority to develop alternative strategies to the integrated 
     career center system, which are designed to accomplish the 
     full integration of workforce development programs. These 
     alternative strategies shall be described in a proposal to 
     the Secretaries of Education and Labor for joint review and 
     approval or disapproval not later than 60 days after the date 
     of receipt of such proposal.

     SEC. 108. IDENTIFICATION OF ELIGIBLE EDUCATION, TRAINING, AND 
                   VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION SERVICE PROVIDERS.

       (a) Eligibility Requirements.--A program offered by a 
     provider of education and training services shall be eligible 
     to receive funds under title III, and title I of the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973 through the receipt of career 
     grants, or through contract, if such program and provider--
       (1) is either--
       (A) eligible to participate in title IV of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965, or
       (B) determined to be eligible under the procedures 
     described in subsection (b); and
       (2) provides the performance-based information required 
     pursuant to subsection (c), except that providers eligible 
     under subparagraph (A) only have to provide information for 
     programs other than programs leading to a degree.
       (b) Alternative Eligibility Procedure.--
       (1) In General.--The Governor shall establish an 
     alternative eligibility procedure for providers of education, 
     training, and vocational rehabilitation services (which may 
     include private sector, for profit and nonprofit providers of 
     such services) in any State desiring to receive funds under 
     title III of this Act and title I of the Rehabilitation Act 
     of 1973, but that are not eligible to participate in title IV 
     of the Higher Education Act of 1965. Such procedure shall 
     establish minimum acceptable levels of performance for such 
     providers, and be based on guidelines developed by the 
     Secretaries of Labor and Education. The Governor may utilize 
     such criteria to certify service providers as having the 
     ability to meet occupational skill standards promoted by the 
     National Skill Standards Board, or to meet, high, industry-
     recognized standards that result in a portable skill 
     certificate in the subject, occupation, or industry for which 
     training is provided, except where such standards are not 
     appropriate for the services rendered. The Governor shall 
     utilize the local workforce development boards, for the 
     identification of eligible qualified providers of education, 
     training, and vocational rehabilitation services. During a 
     transition period, not to exceed 2 years, identification of 
     eligible programs and providers under this subsection may be 
     based on the performance of such programs and providers under 
     the Job Training Partnership Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 
     1973, or other objective measures of previous performance, 
     such as employer evaluations.
       (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if the participation of 
     an institution of higher education in any of the programs 
     under such title of such Act is terminated, such institution 
     shall not be eligible to receive funds under this Act for a 
     period of not less than two years.
       (c) Performance-Based Information.--The State shall 
     identify performance-based information that is to be 
     submitted by providers of services for programs to be 
     eligible under this section. Such information may include 
     information, relating to--
       (1) the percentage of students completing the programs 
     conducted by the provider;
       (2) the rates of licensure of graduates of the programs 
     conducted by the provider;
       (3) the percentage of graduates of the programs meeting 
     industry-recognized skill standards and certification 
     requirements that are at least as challenging as skill 
     standards endorsed by the National Skill Standards Board, 
     once such standards are available.
       (4) measures of program effectiveness such as the rates of 
     placement and retention in employment, and the earnings of 
     graduates of programs conducted by the provider, employer 
     evaluations of provider services, and adherence to accepted 
     industry quality standards (where available) by such 
     providers;
       (5) the percentage of students who obtained employment in 
     an occupation related to the program conducted by the 
     provider;
       (6) the warranties or guarantees provided by such provider 
     relating to the skill levels or employment to be attained by 
     students;
       (7) other information for providers of services under title 
     I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 that reflects the 
     priority of serving individuals with severe disabilities; and
       (8) the percentage of students who, as a result of 
     participation in the program demonstrate significant gains in 
     literacy and basic skills.
       (d) Administration.-- 

[[Page H9175]]

       (1) State agency.--The Governor is authorized to designate 
     a State agency to collect, verify, and disseminate the 
     performance-based information submitted pursuant to 
     subsection (c).
       (2) Application.--A provider of education and training 
     services that desires to be eligible to receive funds under 
     this title shall submit the information required under 
     subsection (c) to the State agency designated under paragraph 
     (1) of this subsection at such time and in such form as such 
     State agency may require.
       (3) List of eligible providers.--The State agency shall 
     compile a list of eligible programs and providers, 
     accompanied by the performance-based information submitted, 
     and disseminate such list and information to the local 
     workforce development boards and integrated career center 
     systems within the State.
       (4) Accuracy of information.--
       (A) In general.--If the State agency determines that 
     information concerning a provider is inaccurate, such 
     provider shall be disqualified from receiving funds under 
     this title for a period of not less than two years, unless 
     such provider can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the 
     Governor or his or her designee, that the information was 
     provided in good faith.
       (B) Appeal.--The Governor shall establish a procedure for a 
     service provider to appeal a determination by a State agency 
     that results in a disqualification under subparagraph (A). 
     Such procedure shall provide an opportunity for a hearing and 
     prescribe appropriate time limits to ensure prompt resolution 
     of the appeal.
       (5) Assistance in developing information.--The State agency 
     established pursuant to paragraph (1) may provide technical 
     assistance to education, training, and vocational 
     rehabilitation providers in developing the information 
     required under subsection (b). Such assistance may include 
     facilitating the utilization of State administrative records, 
     such as unemployment compensation wage records, and other 
     appropriate coordination activities.
       (e) On-The-Job Training Exception.--
       (1) In general.--Providers of on-the-job training are not 
     subject to the requirements of subsections (a), (b), (c), and 
     (d).
       (2) Collection and dissemination of information.--The 
     Workforce Development Board shall collect such performance-
     based information from on-the-job training providers as the 
     Governor may require, and disseminate such information to the 
     local integrated career center systems.
       (f) Rule of Construction Regarding State as Provider of 
     Services.--This section does not prohibit a State from being 
     a provider of education and training services under title 
     III, or under title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 
     subject to the State meeting the requirements of this section 
     for serving as such a provider.

     SEC. 109. MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS.

       (a) In General.--Each State is authorized to use a portion 
     of the funds it receives under this Act to design a unified 
     management information system that is in accordance with 
     guidelines established jointly by the Secretaries in 
     consultation with the Governors.
       (b) Requirements.--Each unified management information 
     system shall, to the extent practicable as determined by the 
     Governor--
       (1) be utilized for federally required fiscal reporting and 
     monitoring for each of the programs authorized under this 
     Act;
       (2) be used by all agencies involved in workforce 
     development activities, including integrated career center 
     systems which shall have the capability to track the overall 
     public investments within the State and workforce development 
     areas, and to inform policymakers as to the results being 
     achieved and the demographic characteristics of the 
     individuals served through that investment;
       (3) contain a common structure of financial reporting 
     requirements, fiscal systems and monitoring for all workforce 
     development expenditures included in the workforce 
     development system that shall utilize common data elements 
     and the definitions included in section 5;
       (4) support local efforts to establish workforce 
     development systems, including intake and eligibility 
     determination for all services; and
       (5) contain data on the demographic characteristics on the 
     participants served by programs authorized under this Act, 
     which shall be collected, produced, and published by the 
     Secretaries.
       (c) Privacy.--Nothing in this Act shall violate the 
     provisions of the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act 
     under section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act and 
     the privacy and confidentiality provisions under section 
     22(b) of title II of the Wagner Peyser Act as amended by this 
     Act.

     SEC. 110. PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM.

       (a) In General.--In order to promote high levels of 
     performance and to ensure an appropriate return on the 
     Nation's investment in the workforce development and literacy 
     system, each State receiving funds under this Act shall 
     develop, or have developed, a statewide performance 
     accountability system in accordance with the provisions of 
     this section.
       (b) Indicators of Performance.--
       (1) In general.--Each State receiving funds under this Act 
     shall identify indicators of performance for each of the 
     programs established under titles II through IV of this Act 
     and title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, consistent 
     with State goals as described in the State plan in accordance 
     with section 104. Such indicators shall, at a minimum, 
     include the core indicators described in subsection (f), and 
     be expressed in an objective, quantifiable, and measurable 
     form. Such indicators may also include post-program surveys 
     measuring customer satisfaction of both employers and program 
     participants.
       (2) Technical definitions of core indicators.--In order to 
     ensure nationwide comparability of performance data, the 
     Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education, in 
     collaboration with the States and with representatives of 
     business and industry, employees, educational agencies, 
     service providers, participants, parents and other interested 
     parties, shall promulgate technical definitions of each of 
     the core indicators described in subsection (f), to be used 
     under this Act in measuring performance.
       (c) Expected Levels of Performance.--
       (1) In general.--(A) Each State shall identify the level of 
     performance, consistent with State goals described under 
     section 104, that is expected for local workforce development 
     areas and other applicable local administrative entities 
     under this Act. In determining such levels, the State shall 
     take into account the challenging levels identified under 
     paragraph (2), and initially develop baseline levels of 
     performance upon which the State will measure continuous 
     improvement.
       (B) The Governor, through the collaborative process, may 
     adjust the expected level of performance with respect to each 
     local area taking into account specific economic, 
     demographic, and geographic factors, and the characteristics 
     of the population to be served.
       (2) Challenging levels of performance.--In order to 
     encourage high levels of performance and advance the Nation's 
     competitiveness in the global economy, the Secretary of Labor 
     and the Secretary of Education, in collaboration with the 
     States and with representatives of business and industry, 
     employees, educational agencies, service providers, 
     participants, parents and other interested parties, shall 
     identify challenging levels of performance with respect to 
     appropriate core indicators selected from among the core 
     indicators described in subsection (f). Where applicable, 
     such challenging levels of performance shall reflect 
     industry-recognized skill standards.
       (d) Report on Performance.--
       (1) In general.--The State shall report to the Secretary of 
     Labor and the Secretary of Education, the levels of 
     performance achieved by local workforce development areas and 
     other applicable local administrative entities with respect 
     to the indicators identified pursuant to subsection (b)(1) 
     for each program year. The Secretaries shall make such 
     information available to the general public through 
     publication and other appropriate methods, and shall 
     disseminate State-by-State comparisons, and comparisons with 
     other industrialized nations (where appropriate).
       (2) Reporting options.--In the collection and reporting of 
     such data, States are encouraged to utilize administrative 
     reporting data on quarterly earnings, establishment and 
     industry affiliation, and geographic location of employment, 
     such as unemployment insurance wage-data records.
       (e) Consequences for Poor Performance.--
       (1) Criteria.--The Governor, through the collaborative 
     process, is authorized to establish criteria for determining 
     whether local workforce development areas and other 
     applicable local administrative entities have failed to meet 
     expected levels of performance with respect to programs under 
     this Act.
       (2) Consequences for poor performance.--
       (A) State consequences.--If a State fails to meet expected 
     levels of performance for a program for any program year as 
     established pursuant to subsection (a), the Secretary of 
     Education or the Secretary of Labor, as appropriate to the 
     particular program, may provide technical assistance, 
     including assistance in the development of a performance 
     improvement plan. If such failure continues for a second 
     consecutive year, the appropriate Secretary may reduce by not 
     more than 5 percent, the amount of the grant that would (in 
     the absence of this paragraph) be payable to the State under 
     such program for the immediately succeeding program year. 
     Such penalty shall be based on the degree of failure to meet 
     expected levels of performance.
       (B) Local consequences.--(i) If a local workforce 
     development area, or other applicable local administrative 
     entity, fails to meet expected levels of performance for a 
     program for any program year under the criteria established 
     in paragraph (1), the Governor, through the collaborative 
     process, may provide technical assistance, including the 
     development of a performance improvement plan.
       (ii) If such failure continues for a second consecutive 
     year, the Governor may take corrective actions, such as the 
     withholding of funds, the redesignation of a local 
     administrative entity, or such other actions as the Governor, 
     through the collaborative process, determines are 
     appropriate, consistent with State law, section 104(c)(3) of 
     this Act, and the requirements of this Act.
       (f) Core Indicators of Performance.--
       (1) Common core indicators for adults.--In addition to the 
     core indicators of performance described in paragraph (2), 
     common 

[[Page H9176]]
     core indicators of performance for programs conducted under titles III 
     and IV of this Act, and under title I of the Vocational 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973 shall be weighted and applied to 
     each of the individual programs, according to the purposes of 
     such titles, and include measures of--
       (A) placement in unsubsidized employment;
       (B) retention in unsubsidized employment for not less than 
     6 months and for not less than 12 months, respectively;
       (C) increases in earnings, or in earnings in combination 
     with employer-assisted benefits;
       (D) attainment of industry-recognized occupational skills, 
     including basic workplace competencies and industry-
     recognized skill standards, which may include the acquisition 
     of a skill certificate in the occupation for which the 
     individual has been prepared;
       (E) attainment of a high school diploma, a general 
     equivalency diploma, or a certificate of completion of a 
     program authorized under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and
       (F) such other measures of performance that the State may 
     wish to collect.
       (2) Additional core indicators for adults.--
       (A) Adult employment and training programs.--In addition to 
     the common core indicators described in paragraph (1), the 
     core indicators of performance for programs conducted under 
     title III shall include measures of the success of 
     individuals with barriers to employment, including dislocated 
     workers, economically disadvantaged individuals, older 
     workers, individuals with disabilities, displaced homemakers, 
     veterans, and individuals who are basic skills deficient, in 
     achieving performance goals established pursuant to this Act.
       (B) Adult education and family literacy programs.--In 
     addition to the common core indicators described in paragraph 
     (1), the core indicators of performance for programs 
     conducted under title IV shall include measures of--
       (i) the number of individuals who, as a result of 
     participation in programs funded under this Act, demonstrate 
     significant gains in literacy skills; and
       (ii) such other measures of performance that the State may 
     wish to collect, including measures of the success of family 
     literacy programs, increased English language skills, and 
     increased community involvement.
       (C) Programs established under title i of the 
     rehabilitation act of 1973.--In addition to the common core 
     indicators described in paragraph (1), the core indicators of 
     performance for programs conducted under title I of the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973 shall include measures of the 
     success of individuals with severe disabilities, including 
     those individuals determined to have a disability under title 
     II or title XVI of the Social Security Act, in achieving 
     performance goals established pursuant to this Act.
       (3) Core indicators for youth development and career 
     preparation programs.--The core indicators of performance for 
     programs conducted under title II shall include measures of--
       (A) attainment of challenging State academic standards;
       (B) attainment of a high school diploma or a general 
     equivalency diploma;
       (C) attainment of industry-recognized occupational skills, 
     including basic workplace competencies and industry-
     recognized skill standards, which may include the acquisition 
     of a skill certificate in the occupation for which the 
     individual has been prepared; if such skill certificate is 
     acquired in addition to or in combination with a high shool 
     diploma or general equivalency diploma;
       (D) reduction in school dropout rates;
       (E) positive results such as placement in postsecondary 
     education or advanced training, military service, employment, 
     or registered apprenticeships;
       (F) the success of individuals described under section 
     201(12) in achieving performance goals established pursuant 
     to this Act, including placement in nontraditional training 
     and employment; and
       (G) such other measures of performance that the State may 
     wish to collect.

     SEC. 111. LIMITATION ON FEDERAL REGULATIONS.

       The Secretary of the Department of Labor and the Secretary 
     of the Department of Education shall issue regulations under 
     this Act only to the extent that such regulations are 
     necessary to ensure that there is compliance with the 
     specific requirements of this Act.

     SEC. 112. GENERAL PROVISION.

       Nothing in this Act shall mandate that any individual, 
     particularly youth served under title II of this Act, be 
     required to choose a specific career path or major.

     SEC. 113. LIABILITY.

       Expenditures that are disallowed (except in the case of 
     fraud, embezzlement, or other criminal activities) under this 
     Act or under title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, may 
     be repaid from funds allocated under the title for which such 
     disallowance occurs, in subsequent program years or fiscal 
     years, as appropriate, after the year in which such 
     disallowance occured. The amount of funds repaid should be 
     equal to the amount of funds disallowed.
              Subtitle B--Amendments to Wagner-Peyser Act

     SEC. 131. GENERAL PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 2 of the Act of June 6, 1933 
     (commonly known as the ``Wagner-Peyser Act'') (29 U.S.C. 49a) 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Job Training 
     Partnership Act'' and inserting ``Consolidated and Reformed 
     Education, Employment, and Rehabilitation Systems Act'';
       (2) in paragraph (2) to read as follows:
       ``(2) the term `local workforce development board' means a 
     local workforce development board established under title I 
     of the Consolidated and Reformed Education, Employment, and 
     Rehabilitation Systems Act;'';
       (3) in paragraph (4) to read as follows:
       ``(4) the term `local workforce development area' means a 
     local workforce development area established under title I of 
     the Consolidated and Reformed Education, Employment, and 
     Rehabilitation Systems Act;'';
       (4) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(6) the term `public employment office' means an office 
     which provides employment services to the general public as 
     part of an integrated career center system; and
       ``(7) the term `integrated career center system' means an 
     integrated career center system established under title I of 
     the Consolidated and Reformed Education, Employment, and 
     Rehabilitation Systems Act.''.
       (b) Duties.--Section 3(a) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 49b(a)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) The Secretary of Labor shall, pursuant to title II of 
     this Act--
       ``(1) assist in the coordination and development of a 
     nationwide system of labor exchange services for the general 
     public;
       ``(2) assist in the development of performance standards, 
     benchmarks, and continuous improvement models for such 
     nationwide system which ensures private sector satisfaction 
     and meets the demands of jobseekers; and
       ``(3) ensure the continued services for individuals 
     receiving unemployment compensation.''.
       (c) Requirements for Receipt of Funds.--Section 4 of such 
     Act (29 U.S.C. 49c) is amended by striking ``a State shall, 
     through its legislature'' and inserting ``the Governor of a 
     State shall, through the collaborative process described in 
     title I of the Consolidated and Reformed Education, 
     Employment, and Rehabilitation Systems Act''.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 5 of such Act 
     (29 U.S.C. 49d) is amended by inserting before the period at 
     the end the following: ``, of which not less than 25 percent 
     shall be for carrying out both section 14 and title II of 
     this Act''.
       (e) Use of Funds Under This Act.--Section 7(c)(2) of such 
     Act (29 U.S.C. 49f(c)(2)) is amended by striking ``any of the 
     following provisions of law'' and all that follows and 
     inserting ``the Consolidated and Reformed Education, 
     Employment, and Rehabilitation Systems Act.''.
       (f) State Plan.--Section 8 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 49g) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) to read as follows:
       ``(a) Any State desiring to receive assistance under this 
     Act shall submit to the Secretary, as part of the State 
     workforce development and literacy plan authorized under 
     title I of the Consolidated and Reformed Education, 
     Employment, and Rehabilitation Systems Act, detailed plans 
     for carrying out the provisions of this Act within such 
     State.'';
       (2) by striking subsections (b), (c), and (e); and
       (3) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (b).
       (g) Elimination of Federal Advisory Council.--Section 11 of 
     such Act (29 U.S.C. 49j) is hereby repealed.
       (h) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Such Act is amended by inserting after section 2 the 
     following new heading:
               ``TITLE I--GENERAL PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS''.
       (2) Section 4 of such Act is amended by striking ``United 
     States Employment Service'' and inserting ``Secretary of 
     Labor''.
       (3) Section 7(b)(2) of such Act is amended by striking 
     ``private industry council'' and inserting ``local workforce 
     development board''.
       (4) Section 7(d) of such Act is amended--
       (A) by striking ``United States Employment Service'' and 
     inserting ``Secretary of Labor''; and
       (B) by striking ``Job Training Partnership Act'' and 
     inserting ``Consolidated and Reformed Education, Employment, 
     and Rehabilitation Systems Act''.
       (5) Section 12 of such Act is amended by striking ``The 
     Director, with the approval of the Secretary of Labor,'' and 
     inserting ``The Secretary of Labor''.

     SEC. 132. LABOR MARKET INFORMATION.

       The Act of June 6, 1933 (commonly known as the ``Wagner-
     Peyser Act''; 29 U.S.C. 49), as amended by section 131, is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following new title:
                  ``TITLE II--LABOR MARKET INFORMATION

     ``SEC. 21. PURPOSE.

       ``The purpose of this title is to ensure a comprehensive 
     and coordinated system of labor market information which will 
     provide locally based, accurate, up-to-date, easily 
     accessible, and user friendly labor market information 
     through a cooperative Federal, State, and local governance 
     structure which includes partnerships with the private sector 
     at all levels.

     ``SEC. 22. SYSTEM CONTENT.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary of Labor, in accordance 
     with the provisions of this 

[[Page H9177]]
     title, shall oversee the development, maintenance, and continuous 
     improvement of a nationwide system of labor market 
     information using statistically valid data, which include--
       ``(1) statistical data from survey and projection programs 
     and data from administrative reporting systems, which, taken 
     together, enumerate, estimate, and project the supply and 
     demand for labor at Federal, State, and local levels in a 
     timely manner, including data on--
       ``(A) the demographic characteristics, as defined in 
     section 5 of the Consolidated and Reformed Education, 
     Employment, and Rehabilitation Systems Act, socioeconomic 
     characteristics, and current employment status of the 
     population, including self-employed, part-time, and seasonal 
     workers, and individuals with severe disabilities, as such 
     data are available from the Bureau of Census and other 
     sources;
       ``(B) job vacancies, education and training requirements, 
     skills, wages, benefits, working conditions, and industrial 
     distribution of occupations, as well as current and projected 
     employment opportunities and trends by industry and 
     occupation;
       ``(C) the educational attainment, training, skills, skill 
     levels, and occupations of the population aggregates, as such 
     data area are available from the Bureau of Census and other 
     sources;
       ``(D) information (such as unemployment insurance wage data 
     records) maintained in a longitudinal manner on the quarterly 
     earnings, establishment and industry affiliation, and 
     geographic location of employment; and
       ``(E) the incidence, industrial and geographical location, 
     and number of workers displaced by permanent layoffs and 
     plant closings;
       ``(2) State and local employment and consumer information 
     on--
       ``(A) job openings, locations, hiring requirements, and 
     application procedures, as well as profiles of employers in 
     the local labor market describing the nature of work 
     performed, employment requirements, wages, benefits, and 
     hiring patterns as such information is volunteered by 
     employers;
       ``(B) aggregate data on job seekers, including their 
     education and training, skills, skill levels, employment 
     experience, and employment goals; and
       ``(C) education courses, training programs, job placement 
     programs, and vocational rehabilitation programs (where 
     appropriate), including--
       ``(i) program performance information as required by this 
     Act, such as summary data on program completion, acquisition 
     of industry-recognized skill standards, job placement, 
     earnings, and the level of satisfaction of the participants 
     and their employers; and
       ``(ii) descriptive information on programs, such as 
     eligibility requirements, costs, financial support, or other 
     supportive services, and other appropriate information which 
     may be available with these courses and programs;
       ``(3) technical standards for data and information that 
     will--
       ``(A) as a minimum guarantor of data usefulness and 
     quality, ensure compatibility and additivity of data and 
     information to enable comparisons among localities and 
     States;
       ``(B) support standardization and aggregation of data and 
     information from the administrative reporting systems of 
     employment-related programs; and
       ``(C) include--
       ``(i) classification and coding systems for industries, 
     occupations, skills, programs, and courses;
       ``(ii) nationally standardized definitions of terms;
       ``(iii) a common system for designating geographic areas;
       ``(iv) quality control mechanisms for data collection and 
     analysis; and
       ``(v) common schedules for data collection and 
     dissemination;
       ``(4) analysis of data and information for uses including--
       ``(A) Federal, State, and local economic policymaking;
       ``(B) the implementation of Federal policies, including the 
     allocation of Federal funds to States and localities and the 
     facilitation of job search and hiring in local labor markets;
       ``(C) Federal, State, and local program planning and 
     evaluation; and
       ``(D) research on labor market dynamics;
       ``(5) dissemination mechanisms for data and analysis, 
     including mechanisms which may be standardized among the 
     States and technical standards in the design of automated 
     databases, and the design of user interfaces and 
     communications protocols;
       ``(6) programs of technical assistance for States and 
     localities in the development, maintenance, and utilization 
     of data, analysis, and dissemination mechanisms, including 
     assistance in adopting and utilizing automated systems and 
     improving the access, through electronic and other means, of 
     youth, adults, and employers to labor market information for 
     localities, States, and the Nation;
       ``(7) programs of research and demonstration, which may be 
     carried out by States and other public or private entities, 
     on ways to improve the products and processes authorized in 
     this title; and
       ``(8) objective performance measures, which will allow for 
     the continuous monitoring of the progress of the labor market 
     information system at national, State, and local levels.
       (b) Information to be Confidential.--
       (1) In general.--No officer or employee of the Federal 
     Government or agent of the Federal Government may:
       (A) use the information furnished under the provisions of 
     this title for any purpose other than the statistical 
     purposes for which it is supplied;
       (B) make any publication whereby the data furnished by any 
     particular establishment or individual under this title can 
     be individually identified; or
       (C) permit anyone other than the sworn officers and 
     employees of any Federal department or agency to examine the 
     individual reports.
       (2) Immunity from legal process.--Any information which is 
     collected and retained under this title shall be immune from 
     the legal process and shall not, without the consent of the 
     individual or establishment concerned, be admitted as 
     evidence or used for any purpose in any action, suit, or 
     other judicial or administrative proceeding.

     ``SEC. 23. FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITIES.

       ``(a) In General.--The Nation's labor market information 
     system shall be planned, administered, overseen, and 
     evaluated by a cooperative governance structure involving the 
     Federal Government, States, and local entities.
       ``(b) Duties.--The Secretary, with respect to data 
     collection, analysis, and dissemination of labor market 
     information, shall carry out the following duties:
       ``(1) Ensure that all statistical and administrative data 
     collection activities within the Department of Labor, 
     including the Employment and Training Administration, 
     Veterans' Employment and Training Service, Employment 
     Standards Administration, and the Occupational Health and 
     Safety Administration, are consistent with those of the 
     Bureau of Labor Statistics.
       ``(2) Assign responsibilities, as appropriate, to agencies 
     such as the Employment and Training Administration to work 
     with the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the collection, 
     analysis and, particularly, in the dissemination of labor 
     market information, and in the provision of training and 
     technical assistance to users of information, including the 
     States, employers, youth, and adults.
       ``(3) In cooperation with other Federal agencies, including 
     the Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, Department 
     of the Treasury, Department of Education, Department of 
     Health and Human Services, Department of Agriculture, 
     Department of Veterans' Affairs, and the Office of Management 
     and Budget, establish and maintain mechanisms for ensuring 
     complementarity and nonduplication in the development and 
     operation of statistical and administrative data collection 
     activities, in order to ensure a comprehensive labor market 
     information system.
       ``(4) Actively seek the participation of other Federal 
     agencies, particularly the National Center for Education 
     Statistics and the Division of Adult and Vocational 
     Education, and the Rehabilitation Services Administration of 
     the Department of Education, the Veterans' Employment and 
     Training Service of the Department of Labor and the 
     Department of Veterans' Affairs with respect to vocational 
     rehabilitation programs in the design and provision of 
     standardized information to the States to support section 
     22(2), and in the dissemination of labor market information.
       ``(5) Establish confidentiality standards for the labor 
     market information system at Federal, State, and local 
     levels, including such provisions as may be necessary, to be 
     taken in coordination with the States, to ensure that privacy 
     and confidentiality protections are guaranteed with respect 
     to individuals and firm data.
       ``(c) Additional Duties.--The Secretary, in collaboration 
     with the Bureau of Labor Statistics, with the assistance of 
     other agencies of the Department where appropriate, shall--
       ``(1) establish and maintain, with the cooperation of the 
     States, elements of the system described in sections 22(a)(1) 
     and 22(a)(3);
       ``(2) develop and promulgate standards, definitions, 
     formats, collection methodologies, and other necessary system 
     elements for the use of the States in their assembling and 
     presentation of the employment information specified in 
     section 22(a)(2);
       ``(3) eliminate gaps and duplication in statistical 
     undertakings, with the systemization of wage surveys as an 
     early priority;
       ``(4) recommend any needed improvements in administrative 
     reporting systems to support the development of labor market 
     information from their data; and
       ``(5) ensure that--
       ``(A) data are sufficiently timely relevant to employers 
     and other users, and locally detailed for uses including 
     those specified in section 22(a)(4);
       ``(B) administrative records are standardized to facilitate 
     the aggregation of data from local to State and national 
     levels and to support the creation of new statistical series 
     from program records; and
       ``(C) paperwork and reporting requirements on employers and 
     individuals are reduced.

     ``SEC. 24. ANNUAL PLAN.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary of Labor, in collaboration 
     with the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and with assistance of 
     other appropriate Federal agencies, shall prepare an annual 
     plan to be the operational mechanism for achieving a 
     cooperative Federal/State governance structure for labor 
     market information and provide the written justification 

[[Page H9178]]
     for the Department of Labor's budget request to Congress by describing 
     the activities and priorities of the Bureau of Labor 
     Statistics, other offices within the Department of Labor, and 
     other Federal agencies with regard to data collection, 
     analysis, and dissemination of labor market information for 
     fiscal years succeeding the fiscal year in which the plan is 
     developed and shall include--
       ``(1) the results of a periodic review of users' needs and 
     priorities, including the identification of new employment 
     issues and the attendant emergence of new needs, on the part 
     of Congress, the States, employers, youth, and adults, for 
     data, analysis, and dissemination;
       ``(2) an evaluation, including the results of objective 
     measures, of the performance of the labor market information 
     system in meeting these needs and the steps to be taken to 
     overcome deficiencies;
       ``(3) a summary of ongoing data programs and activities 
     under section 22 and a description of the development of new 
     data programs, analytical techniques, definitions and 
     standards, dissemination mechanisms, training and technical 
     assistance, governance mechanisms, and funding processes to 
     meet new needs; and
       ``(4) the results of an annual review of the costs to the 
     States of meeting contract requirements for data production 
     under this title, including a description of how the 
     Secretary's requested budget will cover these costs.
       ``(b) Cooperation With the States.--The Secretary and the 
     Bureau of Labor Statistics, in cooperation with the States, 
     shall develop the plan by--
       ``(1) establishing procedures and mechanisms for holding 
     formal and periodic consultations on products and 
     administration of the system, at least once each quarter, 
     with representatives of employers as well as with 
     representatives of the States from each of the 10 Federal 
     regions of the Department of Labor, elected by and from among 
     the State directors of labor market information, according to 
     a process set forth by the Secretary; and
       ``(2) incorporating in the annual plan, for its submission 
     to Congress, the results of these consultations, including 
     any supplementary or dissenting views from representatives of 
     the States.
       ``(c) Representatives of States Deemed To Be Federal 
     Employees.--For purposes of the development of the annual 
     plan and to meet the provisions of Office of Management and 
     Budget Circular A-11, the representatives of the States, 
     elected in accordance with subsection (b)(1), shall be 
     considered to be employees of the Department of Labor.

     ``SEC. 25. GOVERNOR'S RESPONSIBILITIES.

       ``(a) Designation of State Agency.--The Governor of each 
     State shall designate a single State agency to be the agency 
     responsible for the management and oversight of a statewide 
     comprehensive labor market information system and for the 
     State's participation in the cooperative Federal/State 
     governance structure for the nationwide labor market 
     information system.
       ``(b) Duties.--In order to receive Federal financial 
     assistance under this Act, the State agency shall--
       ``(1) develop, maintain, and continuously improve a 
     comprehensive labor market information system, which shall--
       ``(A) include all the elements specified in section 22; and
       ``(B) be responsive to the needs of the State and its 
     localities for planning and evaluative data, including 
     employment and economic analyses and projections, as required 
     by this Act, the Consolidated and Reformed Education, 
     Employment, and Rehabilitation Systems Act, the Social 
     Security Act, and other provisions of law which require the 
     use of labor market information;
       ``(2) ensure the performance of contract and grant 
     responsibilities for data collection, analysis, and 
     dissemination;
       ``(3) conduct such other data collection, analysis, and 
     dissemination activities as will ensure comprehensive State 
     and local labor market information;
       ``(4) actively seek the participation of other State and 
     local agencies, with particular attention to State education, 
     economic development, human services, and welfare agencies, 
     in data collection, analysis, and dissemination activities in 
     order to ensure complementarity and compatibility among data; 
     and
       ``(5) participate in the development of the national annual 
     plan.''.
                     Subtitle C--General Provision

     SEC. 141. WORKER RIGHTS.

       The following requirements shall apply to programs under 
     titles II and III of this Act:
       (1) Prohibition on displacement.--A participant in a 
     program under titles II or III shall not displace any 
     currently employed worker (including a partial displacement, 
     such as a reduction in the hours of non-overtime work, wages, 
     or employment benefits).
       (2) Prohibition on impairment of contracts.--A program 
     under title II or III shall not impair existing contracts for 
     services or collective bargaining agreements, and no such 
     program that would be inconsistent with the terms of a 
     collective bargaining agreement shall be undertaken without 
     the written concurrence of the labor organization and 
     employer concerned.
       (3) Prohibition on replacement.--A participant in a program 
     under title II or III shall not be employed--
       (A) when any other individual is on temporary layoff, with 
     the clear possibility of recall, from the same or any 
     substantially equivalent job with the participating employer; 
     or
       (B) when the employer has terminated the employment of any 
     regular employee or otherwise reduced the workforce of the 
     employer with the intention of filling the vacancy so created 
     with the student.
       (4) Workplaces.--A participant in a program under title II 
     or III shall be provided with adequate and safe equipment and 
     safe and healthful workplaces in conformity with all health 
     and safety requirements of Federal, State, and local law.
       (5) Effect on other laws.--Nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to modify or affect any Federal or State law 
     prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, religion, 
     color, ethnicity, national origin, gender, age, or 
     disability, or to modify or affect any right to enforcement 
     of this Act that may exist under other Federal laws, except 
     as expressly provided by this Act.

     SEC. 142. TRANSFERABILITY.

       The Governor, through the collaborative process, has the 
     authority to transfer not more than 10 percent of the total 
     allotment to a State under title II or title III of this Act, 
     between such titles. Funds transferred under this authority 
     must be distributed to local providers in accordance with the 
     provisions of title II and III of this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title I?


                    amendment offered by mr. kildee

  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The SPEAKER. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kildee: H.R. 1617: Page 91, strike 
     lines 12 through 18.

  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment with my 
colleague, the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams]. This amendment 
would strike six lines in the bill which were added after the bill was 
reported from committee. That provision would allow transfer of 10 
percent of funding from the youth block grant to the adult training 
block or vice versa. This provision would never have been approved in 
committee because it would completely undermine the ability of local 
communities to plan for the rational and effective use of limited 
education and work force preparation dollars.
  When we set up these block grants, Mr. Chairman, we engaged in a 
productive debate about how to design an integrated, high performance 
career preparation and education system. In the face of 20 percent cuts 
in the authorization level, and over $2 billion in job training and 
education funds, this represents a very real threat to the stability of 
the system.
  The greatest threat this poses is to local schools, your local 
schools. We all know that it is going to be next to impossible, Mr. 
Chairman, for States to meet the very stringent work requirements of 
the emerging welfare compromise.
  Now, for Governors who are trying to avoid the penalties of failure 
to meet those targets, this new provision, which was not discussed in 
committee, will provide an irresistible source of funds for Governors. 
Our schools will be left holding the bag as Governors pull that 10 
percent, from the schools transfer the funds to the adult training 
block to meet those emerging work requirements in welfare. So our 
schools again will be left holding the bag and the uncomfortable choice 
of raising local property taxes or new school levies.
   Mr. Chairman, I would support this provision, if it contained the 
stipulation that the Governor certify that all needs under the title 
from which the funds are being transferred have been met. But that is 
not part of the provision. Otherwise this provision will seriously, I 
think, threaten the school-based part of vocational education by 
tempting the Governors to reach into the schools to pull more money 
toward those work requirements in the welfare bill.
  So, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee]. I realize that it 
did pass out of committee without this change, but we have had the 
Governors and others have come to us with requests, and in trying to 
reach down, trying to push the money down to the local communities, it 
seems that this is a worthwhile thing to give them, 10 percent of 

[[Page H9179]]
leeway between the two. Out of 100 percent of money, Mr. Chairman, we 
are only giving them 10 percent of leeway, and I think the Governors 
have every bit as much compassion on the local level as we do. There 
was language that this gives the States the flexibility to use the 
funds where there is the greatest need, but it does protect the basic 
four-grants structure of the bill. It gives the funds locally and 
ensures that the Federal dollars will reach the people and not the 
bureaucrats.
  Some might argue and see this provision as the glass is half-empty, 
but I think that it is half-full in giving the local people more 
jurisdiction. The language provides a voice for local people. They can 
lobby their State legislators for funding, and their Governor. We are 
moving the decision-making out of Washington into the States, into the 
States and localities, and I think the whole premise of the bill is to 
drive decision-making down locally, however we do retain 10 percent of 
the decision here in Washington.
  So, I think this is just a good compromise that we have been able to 
work out.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McKEON. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. KILDEE. Two things that bother me:
  First of all, schools have to plan. As my colleague knows, that is 
why we generally have education forward funded. The schools have to 
plan, and with the schools never knowing for sure whether the Governor 
may reach in and pull 10 percent of those funds out does not really 
make for good planning.
  Would the gentleman be willing to put it some language saying that 
the Governor must certify that all needs under the block have been met 
before any funds are transferred.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I served on a school 
board for 9 years. I understand what the gentleman is saying about 
planning, and it is a problem, but it is something that school boards 
live with all the time.
  I know while I served on the school board the State would pass our 
budget and it would come down, the fiscal year was started in July, and 
throughout the whole year we were subject at any time to recall of some 
of those funds. They have that problem now that they live with, and 
this would be a small portion of the funds that they receive.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
have two sons in the military, so I would not want this to happen. But 
we would never say the President could transfer 10 percent of the funds 
from the Pentagon to some other program here, because the Pentagon has 
to plan also, and schools have to plan just like the Pentagon.
  We would never be able to successfully have an amendment here on the 
floor allowing the President of the United States to transfer 10 
percent of some Pentagon funds to another agency. Why do we do this to 
schools?
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the schools, as they 
are now operating in the real world, never plan to spend 100 percent.
  Mr. KILDEE. The Pentagon is in the real world, I would hope. My two 
sons are lieutenants in the Army.
  Mr. McKEON. School boards never plan to spend their whole 100 percent 
because they understand how this process works, and they always leave a 
contingency there, and I think that is good sound planning. I think 
they would continue to do that on this basis.
  Mr. KILDEE. Well, I am just wondering why we always make schools have 
bake sales to make up the difference. We always let people raid school 
funds and not other areas of government.
  Mr. McKEON. This is not just schools, it could be just the opposite. 
It could be 10 percent from those out of schools. It could mean more 
money for schools.
  Mr. KILDEE. It could.
  Mr. McKEON. So, really, what we are looking at is we have 50 
Governors over the 50 States, we have the State legislatures, who are 
very close to the people in their local States, their local 
communities, and we are just trying to give them a little discretion 
out of all this money that we are giving them. I think that this is 
reasonable.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
read the amendment. I know it could flow from title II to title III and 
vice versa. But in this environment which are we are in right now, 
while we are changing welfare as we know it, and we are putting 
increased pressure on getting into the work force, which I agree with, 
the pressure is going to be on pulling money from schools to the adult 
part. That is the way the money will flow in the next few years.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment and encourage my colleagues to understand what we are talking 
about here. First and foremost we are talking about flexibility. That 
is the foundation of the whole bill.
  Second, let us understand that we are recognizing that we are making 
cuts, cuts the gentleman from Michigan and I might not necessarily 
like, but the reality of deficit reduction means we are going to be 
making cuts. That means States and locals are going to have to make 
priorities.
  Mr. Chairman, I will tell Members that the job training realities in 
Michigan are different than the job training realities in Wisconsin, 
and different than the job training realities in California, and 
different than the job training realities in Pennsylvania. What does 
that mean? That may mean in a unique situation there is some State that 
wants to take money out of the youth training and put it in the adult 
training. I am willing to venture that the bulk of the transfer of 
moneys, however, will be from adult training into the youth training. 
It will be into the schools. This money can go either way. There is not 
a prohibition that says it can only go in one direction.
  Mr. Chairman, let us assume the worst case scenario. Let us assume 
the worst case scenario, that every Governor in every State decides to 
transfer 10 percent of the funds from one program to another 
nationwide. We are talking about the maximum amount of every Governor 
transferring is $200 million. That is the maximum number, based on the 
authorization not on the appropriation level. If we look at what the 
appropriation bills are doing in this area, it will be less than that.
  I think we should understand here what we are trying to do. We are 
trying to recognize that we are going to have to allow some flexibility 
and some creativity in each State. We should take a look at the 
programs in the adult area and we will find that most of those programs 
in the adult area, most of the funding is in dislocated worker 
assistance or in adult training programs as we know them. Job Training 
Partnership Act. Let us assume a State like Wisconsin. We have a very 
good economy right now. I have little doubt what our Governor is going 
to do. Our Governor, who is committed to some of these transition 
programs for youth, I have little doubt that what he will do is take 
some of hat money that we would get under the adult training side and 
literally put it into the schools, because it would make sense from a 
Wisconsin Governor's perspective to do just that.
  Mr. Chairman, I would encourage my colleagues to recognize 
flexibility goes both ways, and, most likely, when we look at the 
programs there in each area, especially when we are dealing with equal 
funding, the number of programs in the youth training program is 2.9, 
the number of programs that are in the adult training is 2.7. We are 
not robbing Peter to pay Paul. Here they are both starting on equal 
funding, and we are saying to the Governors we are going to recognize 
your desire for some flexibility in this area.
  This is not going to be disastrous on either side. It is going to 
provide some flexibility, and, from that perspective, I would encourage 
my colleagues to reject the amendment and live with the base bill.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, and I 
would like to speak briefly about two aspects 

[[Page H9180]]
of this problem. One is, education is being cut drastically. Education 
is being cut by almost $4 billion. Federal aid to education. Those are 
not the only cuts in education. They are cutting education at the State 
levels and cutting education at the city levels. Education for children 
in school.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OWENS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding 
because that is the whole purpose. I was one of the Republicans who 
voted against the appropriations bill. I agree with the gentleman that 
we have cut education too much, but the bill we have in front of us 
will allow those Governors to transfer some money from those adult 
programs into the very education programs that the gentleman thinks 
have been cut too much.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his observation, but what I am speaking of, has the gentleman seen 
these values that liquid can flow one way but it cannot flow back? We 
need a valve where they can transfer money into the school systems and 
not out of it. If we can get transfer that way, that is the most 
appropriate transfer, because the bleeding is taking place in the 
public school systems, in the systems that serve children.
  That is where the tremendous lacerations have been made by this 
Republican controlled Congress; $4 billion, almost, is being lost, and 
now we are jeopardizing just another $200 million we say might be 
transferred. But every bit counts.
  Mr. Chairman, there are some school systems, like the one that serves 
my constituents in New York City that started out with a negative: 
8,000 high school children and no seats to put them in. There is no 
hope on the horizon for getting funds for new buildings. At the 
elementary school level they do not have money for chalk and erasers. 
So we are in a desperate situation here, and it will not be made better 
by the cuts they are going to face next fall.
  They think things are bad this fall, wait until the Republican cuts 
go into effect next fall. And $1.1 billion is being cut out of title I. 
That is one-seventh of the title I funds. That means one-seventh of the 
money flowing into the New York City schools will be cut from the title 
I program. That is no small amount of money.
  So, Mr. Chairman, we have a problem in terms of education, which we 
need so drastically. It is on the losing end. Never before have we had 
such drastic cuts in Federal aid to education. But that does not tell 
the whole story. The Federal Government is setting the tone for what is 
happening at the State and local levels. So there are cuts all around.
  The other thing we must consider is the fact that this myth that has 
been perpetrated this year is totally inaccurate. The myth that State 
and local governments are superior to the Federal Government in terms 
of incorruptibility, in terms of competence, in terms of efficiency. 
That is a myth that has been generated this year. There is nothing in 
history to support that myth. There is nothing in the clippings of our 
local newspapers that will support that myth.
  Mr. Chairman, if we go back and examine some of the worst corruption 
cases in the history of the country, the corruption cases are at the 
local level. There is corruption at the State level. If we look at 
Federal funding for programs close to the one we are considering today, 
look at the SETA program. SETA was destroyed by corruption and 
incompetence at the local level.
  It is the local and State levels that were the problems and continue 
to be the problems. This myth we have invented for the convenience of 
the budget cutters, people who want to make drastic reductions in the 
Federal aid to education, have chosen to blow up local government and 
State government as some kind of paragons of virtue. They are not. The 
likelihood that we will have patronage considerations over educational 
considerations, the likelihood that we will have out-and-out corruption 
is greater at the local level and at the State level. Sure, it does not 
get as much publicity, and one of the reasons that corruption goes on 
and on forever is because it is not exposed in the way the Federal 
Government is exposed. At the Federal level we have much more 
visibility.

  Mr. Chairman, we are up against a situation where there is the 
likelihood that Governors and local administrators will have more 
pressure put on them by the local clubhouse hacks to produce jobs and 
to produce results for the adult programs than for the children. That 
likelihood is very real. It is very real, and we need safeguards 
against it. Beyond the safeguards, we need to have some kind of 
incentives provided, some kind of protection provided for education.
  Mr. Chairman, the one-way valve I am talking about would be a much 
more innovative and useful device for the education of children. I do 
not think children would be protected at all by leaving it wide open 
and allowing this flexibility at the level of the Governors and the 
local level. I think that the fact that this language was slipped in at 
the last minute shows that the people who are the authors of the bill 
do not lend credibility to themselves.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise to reluctantly, and I want to say very reluctantly, 
oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan.
  I hope if there are ever grades given in the art of compromise, that 
I do not pass with high and flying colors; that I get it kicking and 
screaming, just a bare passing grade. As Members may know, in 
committee, I worked with the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams], and 
others that have concern about Governors moving the money between the 
different categories. I believe that when the Federal Government 
allocates the money, we can at least set minimum criteria, not in how 
to execute these grants but in basic guidelines of where, in general 
terms, the money should go and some overriding standards as to the 
results that should be achieved but not micromanage their decisions.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe in this bill we have made a number of 
compromises in order to move forward, to keep the four categories as 
opposed to a general block grant, to protect as many of the categories 
as possible. While this does allow a minimum number of moving between a 
couple of categories, which I personally only supported with great 
reluctance, at this point I do believe we have a bill that can hold 
together and make it through the House and into law, and so I 
reluctantly oppose the gentleman from Michigan, even though I very much 
respect his point.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I support the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Kildee], my friend and colleague, although I must say, if we only look 
at the money that could be moved, it is a close call. It is not a close 
call, though, on other elements, which I think have not been fully 
explored during the debate, and that is with regard to governance.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment, allowing Governors to move money 
between youth and adult training programs, will allow them to do 
something with Federal money that they cannot now do with their own 
State money.

                              {time}  1415

  There are 15 States that elect chief State school officers and give 
them governance over education. There are nine States that have State 
elected boards of education. They choose a chief State school officer 
and provide all education governance to that chief State school 
officer.
  So my friends, the point is this: In those States, Governors cannot 
move money from education to training. Yet we are going to give them 
the right to do that with Federal money, a right that they do not now 
have under law. They are going to be able to violate the constitutional 
responsibility of their own chief State school officer, take education 
money, up to 10 percent of the total of the Federal money, away from 
that chief State school officer, and put it over here in labor, in 
training programs. This is something they now cannot do with their own 
money, because of their own constitutional prohibitions.
  Now, there is another problem in what we are doing. I think that 
first 

[[Page H9181]]
problem is very significant and going to create a lot of consternation 
in the States between the chief State school officers and the 
Governors. But there is a second problem.
  This Congress, after many, many sessions of work, and after attempts 
by two or three Presidents, is finally, I think, going to pass 
significant welfare reform legislation, and we are going to have a 
massive training component and work requirement, at least work 
requirement, in that welfare reform bill. We are going to do something 
else: We are going to cut the money available to the Governors to train 
our own constituents.
  What are the Governors going to do? Turn to the education money, pull 
10 percent of it out, and put it over here in the training money so 
they can train their welfare reform people and bring them up to the 
standards that are going to be required.
  So on the one hand, we are going to propel the Governors to do this 
through our welfare reform legislation; and on the other hand, we are 
forcing them into a fight, if they do do so, with the very people in 
their States who now have jurisdiction over this education money. We 
are going to force the Governors to reach in, take money from their 
chief State school officer, take it away from youth education and use 
it over here in adult training. That is a fight the Governors and chief 
State school officers are going to wish we had never forced them into.
  Therefore, I think the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] is 
showing some good foresight here and wisdom in saying ``Let's not start 
down this path. It will create governance problems, and, to a lesser 
degree, will create financial problems for the chief State school 
officers.''
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle, because I think they have made very constructive 
contributions to the drafting of this legislation, I should point out 
that the language presently in the bill, the 10-percent 
transferability, represent a compromise with the governors, who 
initially wanted a 20-percent transferability across the four 
consolidation block grants.
  In drafting this legislation, we have attempted to at each stage of 
the way find a delicate balance between the concerns of various 
interest groups like the Governors, like the family groups, like the 
business community, in coming up with language that would be acceptable 
on a broad basis.
  This bill language just observes the longstanding American tradition 
of decentralized decisionmaking in education. I do not think anybody 
participating in this debate today would dispute that longstanding 
tradition.
  Furthermore, it respects the needs of local communities. We want to 
give not only the Governors, but local decisionmakers in local 
communities the maximum say and the maximum flexibility in ultimately 
deciding how to use these funds from the Federal taxpayers to best meet 
the needs of their local work force, and certainly of young people who 
are in the education system and are making steps towards entering the 
work force.
  So, again, we are simply here trying to observe the concept of 
federalism, taking a decentralized approach, respecting the 
longstanding tradition of States and local communities to control 
education and job training decisions.
  The other point I wanted to make was on the funding level, because we 
are going to hear a lot of debate here on the floor today about whether 
or not we are adequately funding these block grants. I want to point 
out to my colleagues that I share the concerns of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], as one member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  I personally hope we are able to come through the appropriations 
process and fund these education and job training block grants at the 
postrescissions level. Another way of putting that is, I hope we can 
get the funding back to the level previously determined through a 
bipartisan agreement between the Republican-controlled Congress and the 
Democratic administration and the President on the rescissions bill. 
That is my hope and intent as we gear up here for the final stage of 
the appropriations process and go to conference on the Labor-HHS-
Education appropriations bill with the Senate.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman mentioned that this is a compromise with 
the Governors. It is a compromise with his side of the aisle, because 
the Governors never negotiated with us. We wrote this bill in committee 
in a very bipartisan spirit. The bill came out of committee, I think, 
with only four negative votes. Then the Governors came to that side of 
the aisle and worked out a compromise.
  I think they have jeopardized a bipartisan effort. if they want a 
compromise, we are still here, too, but they choose to compromise only 
with that side of the aisle.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would simply point 
out, my personal view is that the suggestions and contributions by the 
Governors, and obviously we have been principally working with the 
Republican Governors, but all the Governors, have only helped to refine 
and improve the legislation before us.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee].
  The amendment was rejected.


                amendment no. 25 offered by mr. williams

  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 25.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Williams: Page 31, strike line 1 
     and insert the following:
       (2) the lead State agency, entity, official, or officials
       Page 31, line 4, after ``(including'' insert ``the State 
     entity responsible for setting education policies for 
     activities under this Act, consistent with State law, on the 
     day preceding the date of the enactment of this Act and''.
       Page 32, after line 16, insert the following:
       (2) Acceptance of certain recommendations.--The 
     recommendations of any State agency, State entity, or State 
     public official described in subsection (b)(2) with respect 
     to any portion of the State plan described in section 104 
     that affects programs that are under the jurisdiction of the 
     agency, entity, or official shall be accepted by the Governor 
     of the State and the other participants in the collaborative 
     process, and shall be incorporated in the plan, unless the 
     plan includes a finding by the Governor that the 
     recommendations are inconsistent with the purpose of this 
     Act.
       Page 32, line 17, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(3)''.
       Page 36, after line 7, insert the following:
       (11) A designation, consistent with State law, of the State 
     agency or agencies to serve as administrative or fiscal 
     agents for purposes of titles II and IV.

  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, this is my State governance amendment and 
follows on the last debate, and in particular on my words in the last 
debate. That is, I am concerned that this legislation, particularly 
given that the Kildee amendment has failed, will create a governance 
problem within the States among the Governor and the chief State school 
officers.
  My amendment makes it clear that this bill does not interfere with 
the decisions that States themselves make with regard to how to 
organize themselves, particularly when they have done it under 
constitutional mandate. At both the subcommittee and full committee 
level I worked with both of the chairmen to develop language that 
stated that this bill was not intended to negate or supersede or 
interfere with State organizational decisions. Although we placed some 
language in the bill, we also set up a process for putting together 
State and local plans that could be in conflict with this principle and 
which could also lead to unnecessary confusion at the State and local 
level, and that would have the result of unfortunate political 
struggling.
  So my amendment follows what I hope is a pretty simple path: It says 
when putting together the State plan for funding under this bill, the 
Governor has to include as part of that plan the recommendations of the 
State agency that has jurisdiction over those specific areas funded 
under this plan. If the Governor, however, finds out that those 
recommendations would be inconsistent with the purposes of this 

[[Page H9182]]
act, he would not have to include them in his agency recommendations.

  Now, let me say again part of what I said during this debate just 
concluded. Let me tell you why this is, I believe, necessary.
  In a number of States, there are State constitutions that place 
jurisdiction for education programs under the jurisdiction of some 
person other than a Governor, quite often an elected chief State school 
officer. Some States, by the way, do the same for labor programs and 
the training efforts that come under them.
  We obviously have to respect those State constitutional decisions, or 
we will be allowing Governors, perhaps, to do something under the cover 
of Federal law that they cannot do under their own State constitutions. 
Maybe that is why Governors came in here at the last minute lobbying 
for some of these changes, do you suppose?
  Let me also say again what I said before, in case there is anyone in 
the Chamber of listening that was not here during the last debate. We 
have 15 State school officers who are elected representatives of their 
people with jurisdiction over State education matters. They are the 
constitutionally chosen individuals within their States to administer 
education programs, including Federal education programs. But this 
bill, without this amendment that I am now offering, undermines those 
State decisions.
  We have, as I said earlier, other States that elect their State 
school boards who appoint a chief State school officer and place in 
that person the jurisdiction of administering and being responsible for 
State education efforts. So in those States, education is not under the 
control of the Governor. In some States training programs are not under 
the control of the Governor
  I think we should make it clear as possible with this legislation 
that we are not trying to impose on the States our governance structure 
through this bill with regard to what authority the Governors have, 
particularly if that governance structure in this bill is at variance 
with the State's constitution.
  So my amendment makes no changes to the heart of this bill. But what 
it does do is preserve State decisionmaking, particularly governance 
matters and jurisdictions with regard to the States.
  I encourage my colleagues to accept this amendment. I believe it is 
important. I think it will stop or prevent a lot of legal and political 
wrangling in the various States.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this issue is always a very difficult issue on every 
piece of legislation that comes out of our committee, and we have gone 
round and round on this for many, many years. The problem, however, 
with this particular piece of legislation is it is so different than 
many others, in that we are not just talking about education, we are 
bringing into this collaborative process many different entities.
  Now, if we would accept the gentleman's amendment, then we would set 
education on a totally different level than all of the others who are 
participating in this collaborative process. So normally we are talking 
only about education. It makes it a little more simple than this. But 
this particular time we are not only talking about education, we are 
trying to develop a collaborative process that will finally fine tune 
our programs so we will be able to compete on a worldwide basis in the 
21st century. So my opposition would be that we will positively dilute 
the collaborative process if we go this route.
  Now, in the bill we say nothing in this act shall be construed to 
negate or supersede the legal authority under State law of any State 
agency, State entity, or State public official over the programs that 
are under the jurisdiction of the agency and the official.
  We say nothing in this act shall be construed to interfere with the 
authority with such agency, entity, or official to enter into a 
contract under any provision of law.
  Several State constitutions which have elected chief State schooling 
officers or State boards of education, these State constitutions also 
require that education funds go to these elected bodies. Language in 
the CAREERS bill prohibits the Federal Government from superseding 
State constitution and State laws.

                              {time}  1430

  In States where there is not a constitutional issue, CAREERS provides 
the Governor with the final authority.
  So, again, I realize this is always a very difficult issue. I am sure 
it will get more recognition as we go through the conference. But it is 
somewhat different this particular time, because now we are talking 
about a collaborative process, we are not only talking about education 
in relationship to the Governor and the State.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLING. I yield to the gentleman from Montana.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I know from working with the chairman of the committee that he has 
the concern that this governance matter be properly respected. That is 
the matter to which he is speaking now. There is still, as the 
gentleman knows, a difference of opinion about whether we have really 
boilerplated this so as to stop this political and legal haggling which 
I fear we may create.
  Knowing the chairman's wish to get this part right, I would be happy 
to withdraw the amendment with the Chair's assurances that the Chair is 
not entirely married to the committee language and is still willing to 
consider our point of view and work with us as we approach conference.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I think we can consider each other's 
point of view between now and during conference, because I am sure it 
will be an issue again in conference. I share the gentleman's concern.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, we do have the gentleman's assurance that 
he shares the concern on the governance matter.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Montana?
  There was no objection.


                     amendment offered by mr. owens

  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Owens: Page 71, line 2, strike 
     ``Expenditures'' and insert ``With the approval of the 
     Secretary, expenditures''.
       Page 71, line 3, insert after ``other criminal activities'' 
     the following: ``, or mis- expenditures of funds due to 
     willful disregard to statutory requirements, gross 
     negligence, or failure to observe accepted standards of 
     administration''.

  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would impose financial 
penalties for the misuse or abuse of Federal training dollars. One of 
the great mythologies, as I pointed out when discussing the previous 
amendment, one of the great mythologies upon which this bill is based 
is that the only bad government is the Federal Government, that waste 
and corruption can only occur in Washington and that State and local 
governments are populated by saints and angels.
  Massive amounts of Federal dollars are turned over to States and 
local governments in this bill with minimal supervision and minimal 
accountability. There has not been a job training program this loosely 
structured since CETA, the Comprehensive Employment Training Act. Do 
Members recall what happened to CETA?
  Do Members recall how infamy was brought to CETA by local and State 
governments? I have served at all levels of government. I know from 
experience that the sponsor's faith in the purity of State and local 
government is misplaced. This is a myth that has been deliberately 
created to justify moving large numbers of programs to the State and 
local level in order to cut those programs in the process.
  Mismanagement, incompetence, greed, and venality are, if anything, 
more pervasive the lower one goes into government. It is less visible, 
but it is more pervasive. For that reason I have no doubt that, if this 
bill is enacted into law, we will all be reading about outrageous 
scandals and abuses in a year or two.
  But if we are going to adopt the honor system when it comes to job 
training programs, if we are going to 

[[Page H9183]]
create CETA part 12, we should obtain some mechanism for the Federal 
Government to recover taxpayer dollars that are misspent or wasted. 
Under our current job training programs, as under all Federal grant 
programs, grantees who misspend funds must repay them to the Treasury 
with non-Federal dollars.
  This bill, however, includes a very generous forgiveness provision 
that lets the wrongdoers off the hook. Taxpayers listen closely. 
Instead of repaying the money they misspend, they can just deduct is 
from their next grant. No questions asked.
  The taxpayers lose their money. Persons who need training do not get 
it. And the bureaucrat responsible for it all gets away without even a 
slap on the wrist. My amendment would more carefully target those 
instances in which the forgiveness provision would be available.
  It would deny forgiveness and require restitution when a bureaucrat 
misspends funds due to, one, a willful disregard of statutory 
requirements, gross negligence or, three, a failure to observe accepted 
standards of administration. In other instances when an auditing 
exception is due to simple error or an honest mistake, grantees could 
deduct the funds from the next grant. But when the misexpenditures are 
deliberate, or due to incompetence, restitution must be made.
  In many cases, the problem will be deliberate misuse of funds, and 
this is not play money. These are tax dollars. No one, whether they are 
in Federal, State, or local government, should be given license to 
misspend the taxpayers' dollars.
  This is a very elementary amendment, very elementary proposal. This 
is a very standard requirement that is included in all legislation up 
to now. Why are we suddenly creating incentives for misspending funds? 
Why are we creating temptations for people to play with Federal money? 
The amount of Federal money gets smaller and smaller that is available 
for education and for job training. We want to make small amounts of 
money more vulnerable to being raided by people who prey upon Federal 
programs and who prey upon the people who need these very critical 
programs.
  I would like to know why this amendment cannot be accepted as sort of 
standard operating procedure being continued? We have it already. For 
what purpose has the majority decided to make things more easy, lenient 
for people who engage in misspending of Federal funds? For what 
purposes are we courting corruption? What do we gain by making the laws 
more lax as we go through this gigantic transformation of government 
pushing down to the local level and to the State level programs which 
recently worked under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government?
  I do not understand why we have taken this step. All of us know that 
there are still cities and towns in this country controlled by 
organized crime. All of us know that there are rampant examples 
occurring every day of gross mismanagement in various departments of 
State government and city government.
  I do not like to refer to the O.J. trial in this setting, but we see 
massive incompetence in every level of Los Angeles City government, and 
we see in the context of the police department a department of city 
government with ongoing gross corruption of the worst kind.
  In New York State recently we had the State police facing a scandal 
of fingerprints being planted by State police. On and on it goes. 
Corruption at the local level is the basic problem, and we should try 
to counteract it.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I understand the concerns just expressed. 
We, too, of course do not want program dollars for individuals to be 
diverted to cover up sloppy administration. We want to work with you as 
we head to conference on the issue. But herein is the problem. It was 
mentioned over and over and over again, local officials, corrupt local 
officials.
  I do not want to say that somehow or other all State and local 
officials are corrupt. I think we have some housing ghosts in our own 
closet on the Federal level. But herein lies the problem, we are trying 
to get away from having local officials dominating what happens. So we 
set up this work force board, and we set up a board that is primarily 
made up of local business persons.
  We cannot assign them the risk, the liability. Who then do we assign 
the risk and the liability? Well, we assign it to those very local 
officials that were just degraded. That is the dilemma that we are 
faced with. How do we have this board be autonomous? How do we lift 
this board away from the influence and the control of those local 
elected officials?
  If we do not deal with the liability issue somehow, we are not going 
to be able to make that change. The local officials are still going to 
be totally in charge, and that board, of course, will have very little 
influence whatsoever. And we are counting on that board to make the 
changes that we believe need to be made.
  I realize it is a tremendous dilemma, but what we are doing, if we go 
strictly by the gentleman's amendment, what we are doing is turning it 
right back to total domination by those local elected officials that we 
talked about. There must be come way to change that.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLING. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, we understand what problem the gentleman is 
trying to get at. We on this side, most of us agree that there is a 
problem. I was just wondering if maybe we could work on this and get 
some language by the time we get to conference that will achieve what 
we want.
  I think that these funds ought to come out of the administrative 
funds that are going instead of penalizing the recipients of the 
training program. So I am in total agreement with what the gentleman is 
trying to accomplish.
  Maybe between now and conference we can work on some language.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to work between now and 
the time we get to conference and see whether we cannot come up with 
some agreeable language where we can protect those local private people 
and at the same time not allow the local elected officials to dominate 
the changes we are trying to make, the reforms we are trying to make.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLING. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, in placing liability, I did not see where 
liability will be placed on the recipients. The gentleman said the 
recipients of the training would be suffering. I do not see where the 
recipients would suffer at all except in the case of where we take 
money out of next year's program to pay for mistakes that have been 
made in the previous program. Then we are shortchanging the recipients.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I think where the recipients will be hurt 
is that we are going to turn the total control of the operation back to 
the local government that the gentleman had a lot of dissatisfaction 
with. That is where I think they will be hurt.
  I think the recipients will get a much better program if we give as 
much flexibility and as much control to that board. But if we stick 
that board with liability, of course, then that board is not going to 
serve, is not going to function. It is going to be the local elected 
officials who are going to assume the liability and then assume control 
totally of the program. Then I think we are back to CETA.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
do not agree with the liability being a problem where total control has 
to be regained. I think it is a far simpler procedure than that. But if 
the gentleman agrees to try to work it out, I certainly would agree to 
an effort to work this out.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of gentleman from New 
York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title II.
  The text of title II is as follows:
  
[[Page H9184]]

 TITLE II--YOUTH DEVELOPMENT AND CAREER PREPARATION CONSOLIDATION GRANT

     SEC. 201. PURPOSES.

       It is the purpose of this title to provide States and local 
     communities maximum flexibility in designing youth 
     development and career preparation programs that--
       (1) help youth attain the academic skills and occupational 
     skills needed to be successful in a global economy and for 
     lifelong learning;
       (2) best suit the needs of in-school and at-risk youth in 
     their communities;
       (3) promote strong connections between in-school and at-
     risk programs, to ensure that youth are prepared for further 
     education opportunities and good jobs, and promote youth 
     development and career preparation programs that provide 
     opportunities for youth to receive postsecondary education 
     and occupational training;
       (4) promote the formation of education and business 
     partnerships that are dedicated to linking the worlds of 
     school and work; and
       (5) promote high academic and occupational standards and 
     quality vocational-technical education, including improved 
     secondary and postsecondary programs, by focusing resources 
     on program improvement initiatives that help prepare youth 
     for further education, training, and high-wage jobs in high-
     performance workplaces.

     SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this title:
       (1) The term ``administration'' means activities of a State 
     necessary for the proper and efficient performance of its 
     duties under this title, including supervision, but does not 
     include curriculum development activities, personnel 
     development, or research activities.
       (2) The term ``all aspects of the industry'' means strong 
     experience in, and understanding of, all aspects of the 
     industry that youth are preparing to enter, including 
     planning, management, finances, technical and production 
     skills, underlying principles of technology, labor issues, 
     and health and safety.
       (3) The term ``articulation agreement'' means a commitment 
     to a program designed to provide students with a 
     nonduplicative sequence of progressive coursework in 
     secondary and postsecondary education.
       (4) The term ``cooperative education'' means a method of 
     instruction of education for youth who, through written 
     cooperative arrangements between the school and employers, 
     receive instruction, including required academic courses and 
     related instruction by alternation of study in school with a 
     job in any occupational field. Such alternation shall be 
     planned and supervised by the school and employers so that 
     each contributes to the youth's education and employability. 
     Work periods and school attendance may be on alternate half 
     days, full days, weeks, or other periods of time in 
     fulfilling the cooperative program.
       (5) The term ``corrections vocational education'' means 
     programs administered by the State to assist juvenile and 
     adult criminal offenders in correctional institutions in the 
     State, including correctional institutions operated by local 
     authorities.
       (6) The term ``curricula'' means instructional and related 
     or supportive material, including materials using advanced 
     learning technology, in any occupational field which is 
     designed to strengthen the academic foundation and prepare 
     youth for employment at the entry level or to upgrade 
     occupational competencies of those previously or presently 
     employed in any occupational field, and appropriate 
     counseling and guidance material.
       (7) Except as otherwise provided, the term ``eligible 
     institution'' means a local educational agency, an area 
     vocational education school, an intermediate educational 
     agency, an institution of higher education (as such term is 
     defined in section 1201(a) of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965), a State corrections educational agency, or consortia 
     of such entities.
       (8) The term ``partnership'' means a local entity that is 
     responsible for local youth development and career 
     preparation programs and may consist of parents, employers, 
     representatives of local educational agencies and local 
     postsecondary educational institutions (including 
     representatives of area vocational education schools, where 
     applicable), local educators (such as teachers, counselors, 
     or administrators), representative employee organizations, 
     students, and may include other entities.
       (9) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
     Education.
       (10) The term ``sequential course of study'' means an 
     integrated series of courses which are directly related to 
     the educational and occupational skill preparation of youth 
     for jobs, or preparation for postsecondary education.
       (11) The term ``single parent'' means an individual who--
       (A) is unmarried or legally separated from a spouse; and
       (B)(i) has a minor child or children for whom the parent 
     has either custody or joint custody; or
       (ii) is pregnant.
       (12) The term ``special populations'' includes individuals 
     with disabilities, economically disadvantaged individuals, 
     individuals of limited English proficiency, and individuals 
     who are eligible for nontraditional training and employment.
       (13) The term ``tech-prep education program'' means a 
     program of study which--
       (A) combines at least 2 years of secondary and 2 years of 
     postsecondary education in a nonduplicative sequential course 
     of study;
       (B) integrates academic and vocational instruction;
       (C) provides technical preparation in at least 1 field of 
     engineering technology, applied science, mechanical, 
     industrial, or practical arts or trade, or agriculture, 
     health occupations, or business;
       (D) builds student competence in mathematics, science, 
     communications, and workplace skills, through applied 
     academics and integrated instruction in a coherent sequence 
     of courses;
       (E) leads to an associate degree or certificate in a 
     specific career field;
       (F) leads to placement in appropriate employment or further 
     education; and
       (G) enables a student to fulfill a career relating to labor 
     market needs.
       (14) The term ``vocational education'' means organized 
     educational programs offering a sequence of courses which are 
     directly related to the preparation of youth in paid or 
     unpaid employment in current or emerging occupations, 
     including nonbaccalaureate certificate and degree programs 
     and baccalaureate vocational degree programs. Such programs 
     include competency-based applied learning which contributes 
     to a youth's academic knowledge, higher-order reasoning, and 
     problem-solving skills, work attitudes, general employability 
     skills, and the occupational-specific skills necessary for 
     economic independence as a productive and contributing member 
     of society. Such term also includes applied technology 
     education.
       (15) The term ``vocational student organizations'' means 
     those organizations for individuals enrolled in vocational 
     education programs which engage in activities as an integral 
     part of the instructional program. Such organizations may 
     have State and national units which aggregate the work and 
     purposes of instruction in vocational education at the local 
     level.
                       Subtitle A--State Funding

     SEC. 211. NATIONAL AND STATE FUNDING.

       (a) National Programs.--In each fiscal year, of the amounts 
     made available under section 4, the Secretary is authorized 
     to reserve 20 percent or $25,000,000, whichever is less, to 
     carry out the provisions of subtitle D.
       (b) State Allotment.--
       (1) In general.--Of the funds remaining after the 
     reservation under subsection (a), the Secretary shall allot 
     to each State for each fiscal year an amount based on that 
     State's allotment percentage.
       (2) Allotment percentage.--(A) Except as provided in 
     subparagraph (B), the allotment percentage of a State for a 
     fiscal year shall be the same percentage of funds allotted to 
     the State under this section in the preceding fiscal year.
       (B) The allotment percentage of a State for fiscal year 
     1996 shall be the percentage of funds allotted to the State 
     in fiscal year 1995 under--
       (i) section 101 or 101A of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational 
     and Applied Technology Education Act as such Act was in 
     effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this 
     Act; and
       (ii) the funding allotted in fiscal year 1995 under section 
     252 and 262 of the Job Training Partnership Act as such Act 
     was in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (3) State minimum.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law and subject to paragraph (1), any fiscal year for which 
     the amounts appropriated for programs authorized by this 
     title exceed the amounts available under subparagraph (B) for 
     fiscal year 1995, a State shall receive not less than one-
     quarter of one percent of the amount available for each such 
     program for that fiscal year under this subsection. Amounts 
     necessary for increasing such payments to States to comply 
     with the preceding sentence shall be obtained by ratably 
     reducing the amounts to be paid to other States.
       (4) Definition.--For the purposes of this subsection the 
     term ``State'' means, in addition to the several States, the 
     District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 
     Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern 
     Mariana Islands.
       (c) Funding for State Programs.--Of the funds allotted to a 
     State under subsection (b) for each fiscal year, the 
     Governor, through the collaborative process, shall--
       (1) make available not less than 90 percent to local 
     providers;
       (2) make available not more than 8 percent for State 
     programs described in section 222; and
       (3) make available not more than 2 percent for 
     administrative purposes at the State level.
       (d) Proviso.--None of the funds made available under this 
     title shall be used to compel any youth to pursue a specific 
     career. Youth participating in programs under this title 
     shall be eligible to change their course of study and 
     training.

     SEC. 212. WITHIN STATE ALLOCATION.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Allocation of funds.--From the amounts made available 
     pursuant to section 211(c)(1), the Governor, through the 
     collaborative process, shall--
       (A) allocate to eligible institutions an amount equal to 
     not less than 40 percent of such amount for in-school youth 
     programs described in section 241;
       (B) allocate to local workforce development boards an 
     amount equal to not less than 40 percent of such amount for 
     at-risk youth programs described in section 245.

[[Page H9185]]

       (2) Discretionary funds.--From the amounts made available 
     pursuant to section 211(c)(1), the Governor, through the 
     collaborative process, is authorized to provide 10 percent of 
     such amounts for discretionary purposes, as determined by the 
     Governor, to eligible institutions or local workforce 
     development boards for in-school and at-risk youth.
       (3) Remainder of funds.--From the remainder of amounts made 
     available pursuant to section 211(c)(1) and distributed 
     pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, the 
     Governor, through the collaborative process, shall allocate 
     the remainder of any such amounts to carry out the purposes 
     of subparagraphs (A) or (B) of paragraph (1).
       (b) Within State Formula.--
       (1) Establishment.--The Governor, through the collaborative 
     process, and after consultation with local chief elected 
     officials in the local workforce development area and, where 
     appropriate, local educators in such area, shall develop a 
     formula for the allocation of funds in accordance with 
     paragraph (1) of subsection (a). Such formula shall take into 
     account--
       (A) poverty rates within each local community, as 
     determined by the State;
       (B) the proportion of the State's youth population residing 
     within each local community; and
       (C) such other factors as considered appropriate.
       (2) Additional factors.--In establishing such formula, the 
     Governor shall ensure that funds are distributed equitably 
     throughout the State, and that the factors described in 
     paragraph (1) do not receive disproportionate weighting.
       (c) Minimum Grant Amounts.--
       (1) Local educational agencies.--A local educational agency 
     or consortium of such agencies that receives a subgrant from 
     a State under paragraph (1) of subsection (a) for any fiscal 
     year shall receive not less than $15,000.
       (2) Postsecondary institutions.--A postsecondary 
     institution or consortium of such institutions that receives 
     a subgrant from a State under paragraph (1) of subsection (a) 
     for any fiscal year shall receive not less than $50,000.
       (3) Local development board.--A local development board 
     that receives a subgrant from a State under paragraph (1) of 
     subsection (a) for any fiscal year shall receive not less 
     than $15,000.
       (4) Secondary-postsecondary consortia.--One or more local 
     educational agencies and one or more eligible institutions 
     may enter into a consortium agreement. A consortium formed 
     pursuant to this paragraph that receives a subgrant from a 
     State under this subtitle shall receive not less than $50,000 
     in any fiscal year.
       (d) Funds to Consortium.--Funds allocated to a consortium 
     formed to meet the requirements of subsection (c) shall be 
     used only for purposes and activities that are mutually 
     beneficial to all members of the consortium. Such funds may 
     not be reallocated to individual members of the consortium 
     for purposes or activities benefiting only one member of the 
     consortium.
       (e) Waiver.--The State may waive the application of 
     subsection (c) in any case in which a grant recipient--
       (1) is located in a rural, sparsely-populated area; and
       (2) demonstrates an inability to enter into a consortium 
     for purposes of providing services under this title.
       Subtitle B--State Organizational, Planning, and Reporting 
                            Responsibilities

     SEC. 221. STATE PLAN.

       In addition to the requirements described in title I, a 
     State that desires to receive funds for any fiscal year under 
     this title shall, as part of the State Workforce Development 
     and Literacy Plan under title I, submit to the Secretary of 
     Education information that includes--
       (1) a description of the State's plan to develop the 
     academic and occupational skills of youth and provide the 
     attainment of challenging vocational-technical education 
     standards, including industry-approved skill standards and 
     workplace competencies;
       (2) a description of how the State will improve 
     comprehensive career guidance and counseling which may 
     include linkages to career exploration and guidance 
     counseling outside of the school system and shall describe 
     how the State will effectively demonstrate the system of 
     career preparation for youth, which includes elements such as 
     professional development, and secondary-postsecondary 
     collaborations;
       (3) a description of the strategy of the State for 
     integrating academic, vocational, and work-based learning, 
     including a description of how the State will promote 
     collaboration between secondary and postsecondary 
     occupational and academic programs and institutions and 
     incorporating learning in all aspects of the industry; and
       (4) a description of how the State will promote the active 
     involvement of parents and business (including small- and 
     medium-sized businesses) in the planning, development, and 
     implementation of youth development and career preparation 
     programs authorized under this title.

     SEC. 222. STATE PROGRAMS AND STATE ACTIVITIES.

       (a) General Authority.--From amounts made available to a 
     State under section 211(c)(2), each State shall conduct State 
     programs and activities.
       (b) Uses of Funds.--The programs and activities described 
     in subsection (a) may include--
       (1) an assessment of programs conducted with assistance 
     under this title, including the development of--
       (A) performance indicators and measures for such programs; 
     and
       (B) program improvement and accountability with respect to 
     such programs;
       (2) the support for tech-prep education;
       (3) support for workforce preparation programs for single 
     parents, displaced homemakers, and single pregnant women;
       (4) support for corrections vocational education;
       (5) professional development activities for vocational 
     teachers, academic teachers, school administrators, 
     counselors, workplace mentors, and local providers regarding 
     integration of vocational, academic, and work-based 
     curricula, including--
       (A) inservice and preservice training of teachers and 
     faculty in state-of-the-art programs and techniques and 
     nontraditional training and employment; and
       (B) support of public teacher-education programs to ensure 
     vocational teachers stay current with the needs, 
     expectations, and methods of industry to meet employer 
     standards;
       (6) development, dissemination, and field testing of 
     curricula, especially--
       (A) curricula that integrate vocational, academic, and 
     work-based methodologies;
       (B) curricula that provide a coherent sequence of courses 
     through which academic and occupational skills may be 
     measured; and
       (C) curricula for work-based learning;
       (7) leadership and instructional programs in technology 
     education;
       (8) support for cooperative education;
       (9) support for family and consumer science programs;
       (10) creative use of technologies, including professional 
     development in the use of such technologies for instructional 
     purposes and to increase counselor's and youth's knowledge 
     of, and use of, additional information resources;
       (11) support for vocational student organizations; and
       (12) improving comprehensive career guidance and 
     counseling.

     SEC. 223. INCENTIVE AWARDS.

       The State, may, from the amount made available under 
     section 211(c)(2) for any fiscal year make performance awards 
     to 1 or more eligible institutions or local providers that 
     have--
       (1) exceeded in the performance goals described in section 
     110(f)(3);
       (2) implemented exemplary youth development and career 
     preparation programs at the local level in accordance with 
     the purposes described in section 201; or
       (3) provided exemplary education services and activities 
     for at-risk youth.
         Subtitle C--Subgrants for In-School and At-Risk Youth

     SEC. 231. PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS.

       (a) Partnership.--A local workforce development board and 
     eligible institutions that desire to receive a subgrant from 
     a State under this subtitle in any fiscal year shall form a 
     partnership for the purposes of collaborative planning, 
     coordination of in-school and at-risk programs, and effective 
     public participation.
       (b) Plan.--
       (1) In general.--The partnership referred to in subsection 
     (a) shall, in collaboration, develop and submit for approval 
     to the Governor through the State collaborative process a 
     comprehensive youth development and career preparation plan 
     for in-school and at-risk youth. Such plan shall describe how 
     the youth development and career preparation system meets the 
     requirements of sections 241 and 245 and shall address 
     comments received through the collaborative process.
       (2) Collaborative process.--The partnership shall assure 
     the involvement of parents, teachers, and the community in 
     the collaborative planning process which involves design of 
     the indicators, strategies, articulation, and cooperative 
     agreements, assessments, and evaluation of program 
     activities.
       (3) Disputes.--In the event a partnership cannot come to 
     agreement on the content of local plans, the Governor, 
     through the collaborative process, is authorized to develop 
     procedures for the resolution of issues in dispute.

     SEC. 232. DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS.

       (a) In-School Programs.--Based upon an application 
     submitted by the partnership to the Governor through the 
     State collaborative process, a State shall distribute funds 
     made available in a fiscal year as provided in section 
     212(a)(1)(A) to eligible institutions to carry out in-school 
     youth programs described in section 241.
       (b) At-Risk Youth Programs.--A State shall distribute funds 
     made available in any fiscal year as provided in section 
     212(a)(1)(B) to local workforce development boards to carry 
     out at-risk youth programs described in section 245.

                       CHAPTER 1--IN-SCHOOL YOUTH

     SEC. 241. USES OF FUNDS FOR IN-SCHOOL YOUTH.

       (a) General Authority.--Each eligible institution that 
     receives a subgrant under this chapter shall use funds 
     provided under such grant to improve youth development and 
     career preparation programs.
       (b) Requirements for Uses of Funds.--Funds provided by a 
     State pursuant to section 212(a)(1)(A) shall be used to 
     provide in-

[[Page H9186]]
     school youth development and career preparation programs that--
       (1) are of such size, scope, and quality as to be 
     effective;
       (2) integrate academic, vocational, and work-based 
     learning, stressing applied and contextual learning, through 
     a coherent sequence of courses so that youth achieve both 
     academic and occupational competencies and have strong 
     experience in, and understanding of, all aspects of the 
     industry;
       (3) involve employers in the design and implementation of 
     programs;
       (4) establish effective linkages with at-risk youth 
     programs, secondary and postsecondary education;
       (5) provide work-based learning experiences with adult 
     mentoring where appropriate; and
       (6) provide comprehensive career guidance and counseling, 
     including exploration in the practical arts or trade.
       (c) Additional Uses of Funds.--In carrying out the 
     provisions of subsection (b), funds may be used by an 
     eligible institution for in-school youth activities such as--
       (1) purchasing, leasing, or upgrading of equipment, 
     including instructional aids and material;
       (2) inservice training of vocational instructors, academic 
     instructors, employers, and workplace mentors, to integrate 
     academic and vocational education, and provide high-quality 
     school-based and work-based learning experiences;
       (3) tech-prep education programs;
       (4) supplementary services designed to meet the needs of 
     special populations;
       (5) adaptation of equipment;
       (6) apprenticeship programs;
       (7) comprehensive mentoring programs in institutions of 
     higher education offering comprehensive programs in teacher 
     preparation which seek to fully use the skills and work 
     experiences of individuals currently or formerly employed in 
     business and industry, who are interested in becoming 
     classroom instructors, and to meet the need of vocational 
     educators who wish to upgrade their teaching competencies;
       (8) local education and business partnerships for 
     developing and implementing school-based youth development 
     and career preparation systems;
       (9) support for vocational student organizations;
       (10) establishing effective activities and procedures to 
     enable program participants and their parents to participate 
     directly in decisions that influence the character of 
     programs, including providing information and assistance 
     needed for informed and effective participation; and
       (11) support for programs which prepare youth with skills 
     for personal and family life management, work, and leadership 
     in the community and the Nation.

                        CHAPTER 2--AT-RISK YOUTH

     SEC. 245. USES OF FUNDS FOR AT-RISK YOUTH.

       (a) General Authority.--Each local workforce development 
     board that receives a subgrant under this chapter shall use 
     funds provided under such grant to improve youth development 
     and career preparation programs.
       (b) Requirements for Uses of Funds.--Funds provided by a 
     State pursuant to section 212(1)(B) shall be used to provide 
     youth development and career preparation programs for at-risk 
     youth that--
       (1) are of such size, scope, and quality as to be 
     effective;
       (2) integrate academic, vocational, and work-based 
     learning, stressing applied and contextual learning, through 
     a coherent sequence of courses so that in-school and at-risk 
     youth achieve both academic and occupational competencies;
       (3) involve employers in the design and implementation of 
     programs;
       (4) establish effective linkages with in-school youth 
     programs, and secondary and postsecondary education;
       (5) provide work-based learning experiences, including 
     experiences in the practical arts or trade, if applicable;
       (6) provide adult mentoring as a core component of the 
     program;
       (7) provide an objective assessment of the academic level, 
     skill level, and service needs of each participant; and
       (8) provide comprehensive career guidance and counseling.
       (c) Additional Uses of Funds.--In carrying out the 
     provisions of subsection (b), providers of at-risk youth 
     programs, as selected by the local workforce development 
     board, may provide activities such as--
       (1) tutoring, study skills training and instruction leading 
     to completion of high school;
       (2) alternative high school services;
       (3) training or education that is combined with community 
     service, and service learning opportunities;
       (4) paid and unpaid work experience, including limited 
     internships, entry-employment experience programs, and summer 
     employment opportunities, that are integrated with year-
     round, school-based, or alternative school-based programs;
       (5) dropout prevention strategies, strategies to encourage 
     at-risk youth to reenter high school or alternative high 
     school programs, and programs that encourage pregnant and 
     parenting youth to stay in school;
       (6) preemployment and work maturity skills training;
       (7) peer-centered activities encouraging responsibility and 
     other positive social behaviors during non-school hours; and
       (8) training-related supportive services.
       (d) Limitations on Use of Funds.--Not more than 10 percent 
     of the funds provided under this chapter to a local workforce 
     development board may be used for administrative purposes.

     SEC. 246. AT-RISK YOUTH PROVIDERS.

       (a) Role of Local Workforce Development Board.--A local 
     workforce development board that receives funds under this 
     chapter shall not operate programs, but shall contract with 
     eligible providers of demonstrated effectiveness, or with 
     eligible providers utilizing service methodologies with 
     demonstrated effectiveness in serving the youth development 
     and career preparation needs of at-risk youth, for the 
     purpose of providing services under this chapter.
       (b) Eligible Providers.--For purposes of this chapter, 
     eligible providers may include--
       (1) an ``eligible institution'' as defined under section 
     202(7);
       (2) a unit of local government;
       (3) a private, nonprofit organization (including community-
     based organizations);
       (4) a private, for profit entity; or
       (5) other organizations or entities of demonstrated 
     effectiveness and approved by the local workforce development 
     board.
                     Subtitle D--National Programs

     SEC. 251. RESEARCH ACTIVITIES.

       (a) General Authority.--
       (1) In general.--In order to carry out the purpose of this 
     title, the Secretary may, directly or through grants, 
     contracts, or cooperative agreements, carry out research, 
     development, dissemination, replication of model programs, 
     demonstration programs, evaluation, capacity-building, and 
     technical assistance activities with regard to the services 
     and activities carried out under this title.
       (2) Information systems.--Activities carried out under this 
     section may include support for occupational and career 
     information systems.
       (b) Dissemination.--The Secretary shall establish a system 
     for disseminating information resulting from research and 
     development activities carried out under this title.

     SEC. 252. ASSESSMENT AND DATA COLLECTION OF YOUTH DEVELOPMENT 
                   AND CAREER PREPARATION PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, through the Office of 
     Educational Research and Improvement, shall conduct a 
     biennial assessment of services and activities assisted under 
     this title, through studies and analyses conducted 
     independently through competitive awards.
       (b) Contents.--The assessment required under subsection (a) 
     shall examine the extent to which services and activities 
     assisted under this title have achieved their intended 
     purposes and results, including the extent to which--
       (1) State and local services and activities have developed, 
     implemented, or improved youth development and career 
     preparation systems established under this title;
       (2) services and activities assisted under this title 
     succeed in preparing youth, including youth who are members 
     of special populations, for postsecondary education, further 
     learning, or entry into high-skill, high-wage careers;
       (3) youth who participate in services and activities 
     supported under this title succeed in meeting challenging 
     State academic and industry-based skill standards; and
       (4) the system improvement, participation, local and State 
     assessment, and accountability provisions of this title, 
     including the performance goals and indicators established 
     under section 110(f)(3), are effective.

     SEC. 253. NATIONAL CENTER OR CENTERS FOR RESEARCH.

       (a) General Authority.--
       (1) National center.--The Secretary may, through a grant or 
     contract, establish one or more national centers for 
     conducting applied research, development, dissemination, and 
     technical assistance activities which would focus on 
     improving the development and career preparation of youth. 
     The Secretary shall consult with States prior to establishing 
     one or more such centers.
       (2) Eligibility.--Entities eligible to receive funds under 
     this section are institutions of higher education, other 
     public or private nonprofit organizations or agencies, and 
     consortia of such institutions, organizations, or agencies.
       (3) Previous center.--The national center in existence on 
     the day before the date of the enactment of the this Act 
     shall continue to receive assistance under this section in 
     accordance with the terms of its current award.
       (b) Activities.--
       (1) In general.--The applied research, development, 
     dissemination, and technical assistance activities carried 
     out by the national center or centers shall include--
       (A) activities that assist recipients of funds under this 
     title to meet the requirements of section 110(f)(3);
       (B) research and development of activities that combine 
     academic, vocational-technical education, and work-based 
     learning;
       (C) developing new models for remediation of basic academic 
     skills which incorporate appropriate instructional methods;
       (D) identifying ways to establish effective linkages among 
     educational and job training activities at the State and 
     local levels;
       (E) new models for comprehensive career guidance and 
     counseling;
       (F) studies providing longitudinal information or formative 
     evaluation on programs funded under this title, including an 
     analysis of the effectiveness of youth development 

[[Page H9187]]
     and career preparation programs in serving at-risk youth; and
       (G) such other activities as the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate to achieve the purposes of this Act.
       (2) Duties.--The center or centers shall--
       (A) provide assistance to States and local recipients in 
     developing and using systems of performance measures and 
     indicators for improvement of youth development and career 
     preparation programs and services; and
       (B) provide technical assistance and outreach.
       (3) Summary.--The center or centers conducting the 
     activities described in paragraph (1) shall annually prepare 
     a summary of key research findings of such center or centers 
     and shall submit copies of the summary to the Secretaries of 
     Education and Labor. The Secretary shall submit that summary 
     to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate, 
     and the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities 
     of the House of Representatives.
       (c) Clearinghouse.--The center or centers shall maintain a 
     clearinghouse that will provide data and information to 
     Federal, State, and local organizations and agencies about 
     the condition of youth development and career preparation 
     systems and programs funded under this title.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title II?


                    amendment offered by mr. kildee

  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kildee: Page 100, after line 17, 
     insert the following:
       (e) Fiscal Effort.--
       (1) In general.--No payments shall be made under this title 
     for any fiscal year to a State unless the Secretary 
     determines that the combined fiscal effort per student or the 
     aggregate expenditures of such State with respect to 
     vocational education for the fiscal year preceding the fiscal 
     year for which the determination is made was not less than 
     100 percent of such combined fiscal effort or aggregate 
     expenditures for the second fiscal year preceding the fiscal 
     year for which the determination is made.
       (2) Waivers.--The Secretary may waive, for one fiscal year 
     only, the requirements of this subsection if the Secretary 
     determines that such a waiver would be equitable due to 
     exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances such as a natural 
     disaster or a precipitous and unforeseen decline in the 
     financial resources of the State.

  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I would label this amendment the State-
national partnership for education amendment. It could also be called 
the no-free-lunch amendment.
  Right now States must show that they are maintaining their fiscal 
commitment to programs that are receiving Federal funds. Why do we do 
this? Because it helps create a larger pool of funding and a shared 
commitment to achieving the goals of the program.

                              {time}  1445

  My colleagues should know that the Senate job-training bill, which 
will be voted on next week, has the current law, the current 
maintenance-of-efforts language. This was never an issue over in the 
Senate. It was assumed by our colleagues in the other body that both 
partners in this endeavor would be required to invest. The Senate 
welfare bill also has a maintenance-of-effort provision.
  My good friend and chairman has on many occasions said that he is 
opposed to general revenue sharing, and that Federal funds should not 
replace State funds. Without my amendment, that is precisely what we 
will see.
  Finally, I want to read a quote from a report recently issued by the 
Consortium for Policy Research in Education in ``An Outlook for School 
Revenue in the Next 5 Years.'' The report states: ``The environment for 
increases in real school revenue per pupil in the rest of the 1990s 
will not be favorable. The most significant problem is likely to be 
reductions in Federal aid to States. States will respond to decreases 
in Federal aid for social and health programs by trimming increases in 
State education aid.''
  Mr. Chairman, let us not hand States an open invitation to evade 
their responsibility. Let us keep this very healthy partnership alive. 
I recognize that in the manager's amendments, they put some half 
language in on supplement not supplant, but this does not address the 
core problem.
  I think we have to have in place a strong requirement that the States 
not supplant their dollars with the Federal dollars; that they fully 
maintain their efforts. We should reinstate the language that we have 
used for years, the same language as the Senate in its wisdom kept in 
the bill.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government is reducing the overall amount 
of funding provided for youth programs. The Federal Government should 
not at the same time, then, require States to continue their support 
when they are not maintaining the same amount. There is burdensome 
paperwork that would be involved with this. It is difficult to 
determine exactly what services would or could be included.
  In the Senate bill, on their side they have a welfare bill offered by 
Senator Dole on September 17 that requires States to maintain 80 
percent of their current commitment for AFDC programs. The amendment 
would be added to the bill without any objection. What we are striving 
to do with this overall program is give as much leeway and help to the 
local governments as is possible, and this amendment would cause some 
problems with that. We are trying to work on this at this time.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McKEON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to our colleagues 
who may be following the debate on the floor that the gentleman made 
just a moment ago a very important point when he mentioned the action 
in the other body by Senate Majority Leader Dole in his manager's 
amendment to the welfare reform job training bill in the other body 
requiring the States, under a maintenance of effort provision, to 
maintain 80 percent of their current commitment for AFDC programs. The 
amendment now on the floor before the House, in fact the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Kildee] was making mention just a moment ago, I believe, 
of recent actions in the other body, but his amendment would require 
100 percent maintenance of effort. Obviously there is a vast difference 
between the 100 percent maintenance of effort requirement in his 
amendment and the amendment offered by Senator Dole to the welfare 
reform job training program requiring that funding be maintained at 80 
percent of the current level, but still allowing us to achieve one of 
our most important goals with the legislation, and that is to actually 
accomplish an administrative cost savings that can be applied to 
deficit reduction and used as part of our long-term efforts to balance 
the Federal budget.
  I appreciate the gentleman yielding so I could make that very 
important distinction.
  Mr. McKEON. Relaiming my time, when I was home over the last weekend, 
Mr. Chairman, I was visiting with local school administrators and 
school board teachers. They wanted to go over some of the cuts we were 
talking about. They agreed that some of the cuts were necessary, but 
what they asked was if possible, then, would we not continue the 
mandates. If we are going to cut back the funds, let us not continue 
with the mandates. I am in strong support of that. I think when we cut 
back funds, we also should cut back mandates so we do not burden the 
local communities.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee].
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title II?


                Amendment Offered by Mrs. MINK of Hawaii

  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 15 offered by Mrs. Mink of Hawaii: Page 105, 
     after line 13 insert the following:
       (5) a description of how the State will maintain programs 
     for single parents, displaced homemakers, and single pregnant 
     women and programs that promote the elimination of sex bias.

  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, this amendment tracks parallel to 
the amendment that we have just been discussing. It is an amendment 
which goes to a concern that many of us have shared over a long period 
of time. That is, in the identifying of programs and structuring many 
of the programs in job training and vocational education, particularly 
for women, much has been 

[[Page H9188]]
left out. So about 11 years ago, the Congress saw fit to include in the 
description of the programs special attention for career development, 
vocational education, educational programs generally that would be 
focused upon the specific needs of girls and women.
  What happens in this legislation, which block-grants into four 
categories large sums of moneys that are being committed to the States, 
for the States to identify exactly how they are to be spent and what 
programs are to be funded under it, we have no designations with 
respect to an emphasis or consideration for women and girls, for 
displaced homemakers, for single parents, for single pregnant women, 
and so forth.
  While I understand the aversion of the majority Members of this body 
to earmarking and setting aside specific funds for this purpose, I do 
not think that the concerns of Members are any less today than they 
have been with respect to the recognition that girls and women in these 
particular categories need special attention, and we must not allow the 
programs that are developed at the State level using these block funds 
to forget or pay less attention to their needs.
  What I have asked this committee to do is to distinctly provide in 
title II of this bill, H.R. 1617, language which requires the States, 
in submitting their plans, to describe how, in promoting the objectives 
of this legislation with the block grant authority which they will be 
given under title II, to maintain programs for the girls and women in 
this specific area.
  I think that this generalized language, while it has no specific 
earmarks and designation of percentages or set-asides, will at least 
require the State and new committees that will be organized to decide 
that the plan is to at least address this issue of how much of their 
previous programs had been organized around the special needs of girls 
and women, both in and out of school.
  As we know, in title II we have 40 percent of our program for the in-
school youth, 40 percent for out-of-school in the at-risk category, and 
20 percent for such other programs that might be considered appropriate 
under this title, I think, in view of the progress that the welfare 
reform debate has made, and the obvious recognition that the only way 
single parents in the category of welfare recipients are going to be 
able to make it, to find a job, is to have adequate educational 
opportunities and job training. While there is no specific earmark 
here, there may very well be some specific earmarks and allocations in 
the bills that deal with welfare.
  It seems to me while we are refashioning these over 100 programs in 
job training, that we must at least cause the people who are fashioning 
the new guidelines and the new plans to look to this area and to make 
specific proposals with respect to how their new allocations are going 
to deal with this, and to maintain the effort and emphasis that has 
been put in this area in the past. So I would hope that the majority 
members of the committee on the other side would agree to this 
amendment and would accept it, and I believe it will go a long way to 
achieving justice for everyone, because by dealing and working for 
girls and women, in effect, we are helping the total community and the 
total society.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the aisle are opposed to the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman because it would effectively 
create a mandate on the States, which is quite contrary to the 
direction that we want to move here in terms of maximizing flexibility 
for the States. It would create a special population within title II of 
the bill, the youth consolidation grant, and really amount to nothing 
more or less than a gender-based maintenance of effort requirement.
  This amendment would add a new requirement under the State plan 
requirements in the bill, the section of the bill that requires the 
State to report to the Federal Government on how they are going to use 
Federal taxpayer funds to accomplish their own self-developed and self-
defined goals. Under the gentlewoman's amendment, the State would be 
required to describe how they are maintaining their programs for single 
parents, displaced homemakers, single pregnant women, and programs that 
eliminate sex bias. Again, I suggest that it really constitutes a 
gender-based maintenance of effort requirement imposed on the States.
  The language of the gentlewoman's amendment would require that States 
maintain their current level of funding commitment, and in crafting 
this bill, we have endeavored to eliminate set-asides for these and 
other categorical programs, so the gentlewoman's amendment is, again, 
quite contrary to the fundamental intent and purpose of the bill.
  The other point I would like to make is there is nothing in the bill 
that prevents the States and local communities from designing programs 
that are specifically targeted to the special populations which would 
be served or which are addressed by the gentlewoman's amendment. So 
while there is no mandate of services for the special populations 
addressed in the gentlewoman's amendment, the States are asked to 
report on how these special populations are served and how they have 
met performance goals.
  Last, the bill allows, as an additional use of funds, for in-school 
programs ``supplementary services designed to meet the needs of special 
populations,'' so again, there is nothing in the bill, the base bill, 
that prevents the States from designing and offering programs that are 
specifically targeted to these special populations. However, the bill 
is drafted in such a way so there is no mandate that these types of 
programs be offered to these special populations.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it perfectly clear 
that the amendment, and certainly the intent of the amendment and the 
language, provides no such earmarks, no such set-asides, no such 
mandates, as has been described by the gentleman on the floor.

                              {time}  1500

  Rather, what it is saying is for the States, in developing their 
plan, to look to those programs that can be identified as having been 
of special help to this category of girls and women in special 
circumstances and to try to establish exactly what they have done for 
these individuals and to come up with proposals as to how they might 
maintain that level of support.
  There is no mandate. There is no requirement, no set-aside 
whatsoever.
  I differ with your understanding of the amendment. That is clearly 
not what I intended.
  Mr. RIGGS. Reclaiming my time, I am just looking at the language of 
the gentlewoman's amendment, ``The States would be required to describe 
how they will,'' and here is the operative term, ``maintain programs 
for single parents, displaced homemakers and single pregnant women in 
programs that promote the elimination of sex bias.'' I do not know how 
that can be construed as anything other than a mandate on the States, 
and again I would point out to the gentlewoman, in the committee bill 
we certainly have not inserted any language that effectively would 
preclude the States, those States that would elect to have special 
programs for these populations from offering those programs.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mink amendment to H.R. 
1617.
  Mr. Chairman, this Congress will soon complete consideration of a so-
called welfare reform measure that does nothing--absolutely nothing--to 
get welfare recipients into work and off welfare permanently. This 
tragically will leave the most needy among us--women and children--
without the Federal safety net which helped me, and my children, 
survive 27 years ago.
  Now, on top of that, the new majority is attempting to scrap the 
existing job training programs which get women off of welfare and into 
jobs that pay a family wage.
  The Mink amendment is absolutely essential if we want to successfully 
reform welfare. The amendment will preserve job training programs which 
help displaced homemakers and single moms become self-sufficient.
  Sex equity programs help needy women escape the trap of pink-collar; 

[[Page H9189]]
  low paying; dead-end jobs. These are smart programs. They end up saving 
the Government money in the long run by giving women a chance to 
support themselves and their children.
  Let us not kid ourselves. If we do not stand up for sex equity job 
training programs today, they will be lost forever.
  Pass the Mink amendment, and give women and children a real chance to 
succeed.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mink amendment to help women 
and girls attain equal opportunities in education and employment.
  Today, most women must work to earn a living. Yet women still earn 25 
percent less than men. They are often tracked into traditionally female 
occupations which pay considerably less than the careers of their male 
counterparts.
  This is why it is essential that we continue to encourage and train 
women to seek jobs which pay higher wages. This amendment would do just 
that. It would require States to maintain programs which encourage the 
elimination of sexual bias in job training and vocational education. In 
this way, women could substantially increase their incomes by training 
for nontraditional occupations which pay 20-30 percent more than 
traditional, predominantly female ones.
  This amendment would also require States to continue to provide 
specialized services to meet the needs of displaced-homemakers and 
single parents. These programs, supported by both Democrats and 
Republicans for the past 11 years, have been tremendously successful in 
decreasing dependency on public assistance, and in increasing the 
employment and wage rates of participants.
  In one State, 71 percent of the people who participated in the 
displaced homemakers/single parent and sex equity programs doubled 
their incomes after completing their training programs.
  Let us be realistic. States will not continue to serve the needs of 
these important groups unless they are required to. Without 
establishing specific set-asides, this amendment would require each 
State to continue providing equitable job training and vocational 
education for women, to give them the tools to become economically self 
sufficient.
  For the past 11 years, Congress has supported the effort to eliminate 
sex bias and stereotyping in employment. Let us continue to support 
women, as well as single parents and displaced homemakers, to learn new 
skills and increase their earning potential and productivity. Let us 
help them learn to permanently provide for themselves and for their 
families. Support the Mink amendment.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I want to kill a little time because I know the gentlewoman from 
Maryland [Mrs. Morella] would be totally distraught if she could not 
get here and participate in this, so I say to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland [Mrs. Morella], if you are out there, you had better hustle 
because we may run out of participants in the debate.
  But at any rate, I do not want to take a back seat to anyone when it 
comes to displaced homemakers. I do not want to pat myself on the back 
either, but I probably have had more to do over the years with keeping 
this program moving than most anyone. I have brought all of the 
successful participants in displaced homemaker programs from my 
district down to testify on numerous occasions.
  What I want to point out is that it would appear to me that if we say 
to the State you must report how they are served and how you have met 
the performance goals, certainly we are sending a message to States 
that we expect them to take care of special needs.
  What we have tried to get away from was the fact that over the years 
we get a set-aside for everything under the Sun, and then we diminish 
the effectiveness of the program because we reduce the amount of money 
available because we have had so many programs. We were trying to get 
away from that set-aside issue and at the same time indicate that 
certainly we have a strong interest that they meet those needs. That is 
why we say report on how they are served and how they met performance 
goals.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLING. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, just so 
I could make the point, the previous speaker on the other side, the 
gentlewoman from California, who is a very forceful and dynamic 
speaker, I think, used the term ``require'' three or four times in her 
remarks, making it explicitly clear the intent of this amendment is to 
require States to maintain programs in this particular area, and I 
share the Chairman's concern that all that ultimately leads to is 
fragmented job training services at the local level.
  Furthermore, I would like to point out that I am not exactly sure why 
this amendment is being offered under title II, the youth development 
and career preparation consolidation grant. It seems to be misplaced. 
If it was to be offered anywhere, it seems it should be offered under 
title III.
  Then when you go through the requirements under section 221, 
pertaining to the State plan, again, there is nothing in there that is 
preventing the State from incorporating these special populations into 
their State plan under the provisions of title II, subtitle B, section 
221, State plan.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLING. I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. I would like the opportunity to respond to the 
inquiry. There is nothing in the amendment which requires the States to 
provide any explicit set-aside funding for these programs, and to the 
point of why the amendment was placed on page 105, subtitle B, that 
section has to do with the State plan, and that paragraph begins by 
saying, ``In addition to the requirements described in title I, a State 
that desires to receive funds shall submit to the Secretary 
information,'' and then it lists the kinds of information that the 
Secretary is seeking to help it determine the nature of the programs 
that will be in place compared to the past. This is a way to evaluate 
the functioning of your new program.
  It is not a requirement. It is a way for evaluating. It is a way to 
make assurances that you yourself say you have supported all of these 
years, and that is to help women in special circumstances.
  So this description of a State plan to develop academic and 
occupational skills of youth, description of how the State will improve 
comprehensive career guidance, a description of the strategy of how to 
integrate academic programs with work-based training, a description of 
how the State will promote active involvement of parents, and then the 
fifth element, which I have added, which is a description of the 
States' prior commitment to this special area so that we can see what 
they have done in the past and measure it with the plan that they are 
now promulgating for the future and whether this particular category of 
special needs is going to be met.
  I do not regard that as any kind of set-aside requirement, mandate or 
whatever. It is simply an effort to try to define what information base 
a State should provide the Secretary.
  Mr. GOODLING. Reclaiming my time, would the gentlewoman like to end, 
after ``bias,'' that nothing in this amendment requires the State to 
set aside any amount of money for this purpose?
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. If the gentleman will yield further, I will be 
happy to consider that if you will agree to my amendment and we could 
discuss those kinds of limitations when we go to conference, but I 
think this concept should stand on its face. I hope the Members will 
support it.
  Mr. GOODLING. Then did the gentlewoman indicate she would be happy to 
consider that?
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mink amendment. In a Congress 
where we have debated at length methods of moving families off welfare, 
and methods of helping individuals become self-

[[Page H9190]]
sufficient, we must protect vocational educational programs for women 
and girls.
  It is a fact that the earning power of American women directly 
impacts the well-being of the American family. Unfortunately, women who 
work full-time still only make 72 percent of their male colleagues' 
earnings. This is a particularly disturbing fact when viewed in the 
context of a recent survey that found that a majority of American women 
earn at least half of their family incomes. If we are going to value 
families, we have to value those programs that allow parents to care 
for their families.
  The Mink amendment will preserve important programs that help assure 
equitable education and employment opportunities for women and girls. 
The Perkins programs for displaced homemakers, single parents, and sex 
equity have been very successful. For the past 11 years, these programs 
have helped women move into new jobs that provide higher wages, better 
benefits, and the possibility of career advancement. Women in 
nontraditional occupations earn 20-30 percent more than women in 
traditional occupations.
  Let me tell you about a woman from New York City, Kelly Miles. Kelly 
is a single mother of three, who was on public assistance for many 
years. Through a nontraditional employment training program for women, 
Kelly was able to move off of welfare, and is now a second year 
apprentice electrician. Kelly holds down a job, and goes to classes 
twice a week at the Electrician's Union so that she can keep advancing. 
Kelly is a perfect example of what women can achieve through these very 
important programs.

  I urge all of my colleagues to support the Mink amendment. Through 
these programs we can reach thousands of Kelly Miles--women who want to 
be self-sufficient and just need a little bit of help. Please help us 
to protect these programs.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me first commend the members of the Economic and 
Educational Opportunities Committee for their efforts to consolidate 
more than 150 training and employment programs into a coherent work 
force development system. I also want to express my great appreciation 
to Chairman Goodling and Chairman McKeon for agreeing to include 
language in the bill that will ensure that women have access to 
nontraditional jobs that pay higher wages and provide better benefits. 
For displaced homemakers and single parents, nontraditional jobs can be 
a pathway to economic self-sufficiency and family stability.
  It is because of my interest in the self-sufficiency of women that I 
now rise in support of the Mink amendment which would preserve programs 
for displaced homemakers, single parents, and pregnant women. It is my 
understanding that this amendment does not add any cost to the bill. It 
merely requires the States to describe how they will maintain programs 
for displaced homemakers and single parents and programs that preserve 
sex equity.
  Programs and services to displaced homemakers and single parents have 
received high marks. A national assessment of past program participants 
found that four out of five participants rated the program they 
attended as excellent or very good. Three out of four customers who 
participated in other Government programs such as the welfare system, 
JTPA, or Job Corps, rated the displaced homemaker or single parent 
programs as much better or better. Nearly all of the participants 
agreed that they would recommend the program to a friend.
  The Mink amendment will assure that these successful programs will 
continue. The amendment would also provide States with the flexibility 
they need to meet the needs of the girls and women in their vocational 
education and job training programs. I urge my colleagues to support 
this important amendment.

                              {time}  1515

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Mink amendment 
which enables women in crisis, single parents, single pregnant women to 
get the training, education and skills they need to lead economically 
self-sufficient lives.
  Under the current law States are required to designate 10 percent of 
their education funds for these programs.
  This set-aside was created to redirect women into higher skilled and 
high-wage employment and to address the unique needs of displaced 
homemakers and single parents.
  This amendment, however, does not retain the specific set-aside, but 
merely requires that each State include in their State plan a 
description of how they will maintain these services.
  I believe this language is essential to ensure equitable educational 
and employment opportunities for women and girls.
  In New Haven County last year, these programs directly provided 
educational and employment assistance to nearly 500 women. Preparing 
them to enter the work force and meet the need of their children.
  Let me tell you about just one of the extraordinary women in my 
district and her success story. Pamela C. of West Haven, CT, is a 49-
year-old mother of three. When she came to the Displaced Homemaker 
Program in New Haven in 1993, Pamela was employed in the service 
industry and bringing home $16,000 a year for her family.
  Pamela needed career counseling and a referral to job training so she 
could upgrade her job skills to earn more money each week and provide a 
better life for her family.
  Pamela received vocational training as a home health aide. She is now 
working full time as a home health aide for the Visiting Nurses 
Association in New Haven County. Not only does this provide her 
substantially more in earnings, she enjoys her work and feels good 
about going to work each day.
  Women like Pamela want to improve themselves and provide for their 
family. We must not shut the door of opportunity in their faces. The 
Mink amendment makes sure that door will remain open.
  It is clear that these targeted services are needed and are working 
for families on the edge in my district.
  The Mink amendment states that States should maintain programs for 
single parents, displaced homemakers, and single pregnant women who are 
struggling to provide for their families. These women are trying to 
help themselves and contribute, they should be supported and given 
assistance when possible.
  At a time when Congress is reforming our welfare system, and 
specifically imposing time limits on welfare services, increasing the 
employability and earning potential of women should be our primary 
goal.
  Mr. Chairman, the Mink amendment does not ask for a set-aside and its 
does not add any new costs to the bill.
  I wholeheartedly support this amendment and urge my colleagues to 
vote in favor of it.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, as a long-time supporter of programs 
designed to assist displaced homemakers, I rise today to urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of the Mink amendment. I also want to 
commend my colleague from Hawaii for offering this important provision.
  The Mink amendment will require States to include in their workforce 
development and literacy plan a description of how the State will 
maintain job training and education programs for displaced homemakers. 
It will not require States to earmark funds for these programs, nor 
will it add any cost to the underlying bill.
  Mr. Chairman, displaced homemakers are primarily women who have been 
full-time homemakers for a number of years, but who have lost their 
source of economic support due to divorce, separation, abandonment, or 
the death or disability of a spouse. Many displaced homemakers are 
living at or near the poverty level, are younger than 35 and have 
children.
  One out of every six American women is a displaced homemaker. In 
1990, there were 17.8 million displaced homemakers in the United 
States. In my own State of Florida, there were over 1.1 million 
displaced homemakers in 1990--a 55 percent increase since 1980.
  For many years, I have sponsored legislation to assist displaced 
homemakers by providing a tax credit to employers who hire and train 
them. In the present Congress, I have reintroduced this legislation as 
H.R. 110.
  Specifically, my bill would allow employers a tax credit for hiring 
displaced homemakers by establishing them as a targeted group under the 
Targeted Jobs Tax Credit [TJTC] program. The TJTC program, which 
expired at the end 

[[Page H9191]]

of 1994, is intended to combat and lessen the problem of structural 
unemployment among certain hard-to-employ individuals.
  My bill would reauthorize the TJTC program and extend it solely to 
displaced homemakers. Under the proposal, employers could apply for a 
tax credit if they hire and train these individuals who are having 
difficulty reentering the job market.
  I see this approach as cost-effective. By providing prospective 
employers with the incentive to hire and train displaced homemakers, we 
avoid the much more costly alternative of publicly supporting these 
homemakers and their families.
  Mr. Chairman, these are persons who are in financial need and want to 
work. The Mink amendment is designed to help them stand on their own 
and reduce dependency on public assistance. I hope my colleagues will 
join me in supporting this important provision.


Amendment offered by Mr. GOODLING to the Amendment Offered by Mrs. MINK 
                               of Hawaii

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Goodling to the amendment offered 
     by Mrs. Mink of Hawaii: Beginning on line 1 of the matter 
     proposed to be inserted by the amendment, strike out 
     ``maintain programs for''.
       At the end of the matter proposed, insert ``Nothing in this 
     Act shall be construed to mandate an amount be set-aside for 
     these purposes.''
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii 
[Mrs. Mink].
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I have reviewed this amendment and 
it is wholly consistent with my intent, and I accept it.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for accepting the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] to the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
  The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink], as amended.
  The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title II?


                    amendment offered by mr. sawyer

  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Sawyer: Page 105, line 17, insert 
     ``, consistent with State law,'' after ``shall''.
       Page 109, line 9, before ``In'' insert ``(A)''.
       Page 109, after line 13, insert the following:
       (B) If procedures are not in place for the resolution of 
     disputes an eligible institution of such partnership may 
     apply directly to the State for a grant to carry out in-
     school youth programs described in section 241.
       Page 109, beginning on line 16, strike ``by the'' and all 
     that follows through ``process,'' and insert ``according to 
     the requirements described in section 231''.

  Mr. SAWYER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity first to 
comment on the importance of what we are trying to accomplish here 
today, and on the federally funded employment and training services as 
proposed in this bill. It is important for Governors to have authority 
over the approval of the overall State plan. However, the education 
provisions of the plan in my view should be administered by the 
authorities within the States who have the clear responsibility for 
administering State and local education programs.
  It is for that reason that I offer this amendment which gives the 
responsibility for the authority to establish procedures for dispute 
resolution, dispute settlement for local work force development boards, 
and to put that into a place that is consistent with State 
constitutional and statutory provisions.
  These procedures would be used to settle disagreements over proposals 
for State subgrants throughout this title by delegating authority to 
establish dispute settlement procedures solely to the Governor, as the 
bill would suggest. The provision infringes on State laws and 
constitutions in about half of the States.
  Now, I recognize that it is the intent, the expressed intent of many 
of the speakers prior to me that this not be the case. But the fact is 
that currently at the State level the administration of education is 
either shared by the Governor and State legislators or delegated to the 
education board or chief State school officer. In most cases it is not 
the sole responsibility of the Governor. It is our intent not to 
disrupt that for this procedural purpose.
  I understand also that there are some 25 States or so in which the 
responsibility for the governance and administration of education is 
delegated by the Governor through his appointment of a policy-sensitive 
chief State school officer, and it is not my intention to disrupt that 
relationship either. Rather, it is to recognize the vocational 
education is important for our Nation's many students who do not go on 
to college. It is important for the elevation of skills available to 
employers, and so it is important to make sure that the dollars that 
are intended to go to these students get there.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would defer to State law, and to give the 
authority to establish procedures to settle these disputes to whomever 
has control of the administration of education under State law.
  My hope had also been to allow local authorities to apply for in-
State subgrants in the event that a dispute cannot be resolved within 
and specified number of days. The goal would have been to prevent 
students from being penalized when a local work force development board 
cannot reach an agreement. But it is not, Mr. Chairman, my intent to 
prejudge or to provide any advantage to one side or another. So, I have 
removed language from the bill, but would rather leave in place a 
requirement that procedures for resolving the disputes be in place so 
that an eligible institution can apply directly to the State to carry 
out a grant in the event that those procedures are not in place.
  I understand that, If I could have the attention of the chairman of 
the committee, that we have agreed fundamentally with this set of 
principles, and also understand that it is not our intent to leave 
stalemated disputes unresolved at the local level, but rather, it is 
not our intent either to give advantage to any of the parties that are 
a part of those local boards, and so recognize that it is important to 
work out such a dispute resolution mechanism at the local level between 
now and conference.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I want to just again say that I urge the 
support of this amendment in order to ensure that State sovereignty is 
honored and that our Nation's vocational students have access to these 
important funds in a timely way.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Sawyer], so that I am exactly sure about what we have done.
  At the beginning of the gentleman's amendment, it says, ``consistent 
with State law'' and then the gentleman has ``after `shall.''' Is the 
gentleman indicating that this only applies to States who have 
constitutional language that directs that money directly to the State 
education group?
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLING. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, constitutionally specified language as we 
have discussed in this bill, specifically with regard to States.
  Mr. GOODLING. And then the gentleman eliminates line 11 and ``as the 
case may be''; you have eliminated that language?
  Mr. SAWYER. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. GOODLING. And then the gentleman has eliminated in line two under 
(B), ``Or a resolution is not reached within 45 days after a written 
request for resolution is made by a member of the partnership''?
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, as we have discussed, that section is 
eliminated, recognizing of course that a way to break local deadlocks 
is important, and that we probably do not have the capacity to write 
language to accomplish that on the floor, but that we ought to try to 
achieve that between now and conference.

[[Page H9192]]

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, with that understanding, we accept the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the gentlewoman 
from California [Mrs. Seastrand].
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California [Mrs. 
Seastrand], who has helped us so much on working on this bill, and I 
appreciate that gentlewoman's comments.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California.
  Mr. Chairman, it is important to recognize that our students of today 
are our entrepreneurs of tomorrow, and for many years we have sought to 
find the best ways to educate our children to be contributors to the 
society in which they live, and to be prepared to take that bold step 
from primary and secondary education to the workplace and provider.
  Now, as we consider any legislation dealing with the education of our 
children, or enhancing the skills for those already in the workplace, 
or assessing the needs of those in need of help and assistance, whether 
it is an education or workplace preparation, we understand that the 
principles we must adhere to are those on which we place our successes 
of today, the free market system individual initiative, 
entrepreneurship, and personal freedom.
  In this Congress, we are moving to reexamine our direction of the 
last 40 years and determine, when possible, how we can enhance those 
principles and reduce the amount of Government interference.
  I believe the intent of this CAREERS bill was to do just that.

                              {time}  1530

  The Comptroller General of the United States identified 163 different 
Federal programs, administered by 14 different Federal agencies that 
offered some form of education, job training, or employment assistance 
to youth and adults with a total cost of $20 billion. The intent of 
CAREERS as presented to me was to end these duplications and 
fragmentations that existed within the varied Federal work force 
preparation and development programs, to eliminate conflicting 
requirements, and to streamline and consolidate programs while 
providing maximum authority and responsibility to State and local 
communities.
  Now I also understood that CAREERS would stress private sector 
partnerships and increase leadership and responsibility of the private 
sector as it relates to investments in work force training and 
preparation, that it would establish a system which was market-driven, 
accountable, providing customer choice, improve education by stressing 
programs resulting in higher literacy rates, while simultaneously 
focusing on those trapped in poverty and exhibiting inadequate 
educational achievement.
  Now I am supportive of all these goals, but, as I began to read the 
specifics, I realized that CAREERS, in transferring focus to the State 
and local levels, had initiated some actions that would work against 
our goals of a free market driven economy, individual creativity and 
initiative, and I saw particular need to correct certain situations, 
and I am satisfied that many have been made. However one major concern 
that remains relates to the ideas of national skill standards and 
requirements of skill certificates. I believe it is important that we 
emphasize that the responsibility of establishing standards and 
requirements for an individual to gain achievement within a particular 
field of work should be determined and maintained by those leaders 
within the particular field or industry and not the Federal Government.
  This is an issue, I believe, that must be resolved, and I do not 
believe that this bill is the vehicle to do so. We should have an 
opportunity to debate the issue of national skills standards at another 
time, and so I think it is a topic of many concerns, I know, to 
constituents of mine and constituents across these United States.
  So, Mr. Chairman, what I am asking and strongly encouraging is 
further discussion in the conference committee regarding this 
particular issue.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, because job training and work force 
preparation programs are about preparing individuals for careers, it is 
important that employers identify the skills needed in the workplace 
and the training be tied to such skills in order that employment and 
training programs are relevant and useful. CAREERS includes the 
attainment of industry-recognized skill standards in its performance 
indicators for both adults and youth. All references to the national 
board are tied to voluntary provisions in CAREERS. CAREERS says that 
the Governors may take into account industry-recognized skill standards 
at least as challenging as those endorsed by the national board in 
identifying education training providers who are eligible to 
participate in a voucher system.
  As my colleague indicates, we do need to continue this discussion. We 
will do that in conference. We really appreciate all of the 
gentlewoman's hard work and effort in bringing this to the floor, and I 
pledge to her that we will continue to work with her as we go to the 
conference.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California 
[Mr. McKeon].


                    amendment offered by ms. woolsey

  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Woolsey:
       Page 121, after line 2, insert the following:

                       Subtitle E--Authorizations

     SEC. 261. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Notwithstanding section 4(a), there are authorized to be 
     appropriated--
       (1) for title II, $3,000,000,000 for fiscal year 1997 and 
     such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 
     1998 through 2002 to carry out the programs under such title;
       (2) for title III, $3,225,000,000 for fiscal year 1997 and 
     such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 
     1998 through 2002 to carry out the programs under such title; 
     and
       (3) for subtitle A of title IV, $597,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 1997 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2002 to carry out the programs 
     under such subtitle.

  Ms. WOOLSEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, it seems like we are on a roll here 
between the Republicans and the Democrats, so I thought I should take 
this opportunity for a very simple amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment increases the amount of money that this 
bill authorizes for education, for job training, and literacy. It 
increases it to a level where the programs can actually be successful.
  As my colleagues know, it is hard to believe that it was just last 
year when I convinced this body to approve a landmark resolution to 
increase our investment in education by 1 percent a year until the 
education budget accounts for 10 percent of our national budget, and 
that should be by the year 2002.
  Well, guess what, folks? Times have changed. This bill does contain 
some important bipartisan initiatives that deserve to pass. But when it 
comes to funding, this bill sends us in the wrong direction. 
Unfortunately, the careers act actually cuts funds for job training 
programs for youths, for adults, and for adult literacy and education.
  Careers consolidates 30 existing education and job training programs 
for youth into one block grant, and then cuts the funds for these 
programs by 20 percent. It combines all of the existing Federal 
employment and job training programs for adults, and reduces these 
funds by 20 percent. The adult education and literacy funds are cut by 
10 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, I find it truly ironic that on the same day our 
colleagues in the other body are voting on a bill to reform welfare, we 
are debating a bill that cuts funds for programs to get people off of 
welfare. It also makes it harder to prevent people from going on 
welfare in the first place, because it cuts programs that it train 
youth and workers for jobs that pay a liveable wage.
  I have heard plenty of talk about ``changing the welfare system as we 


[[Page H9193]]
know it.'' Well, my amendment gives this house the opportunity to ``put 
its money where its mouth is.'' My amendment increases funds for 
education and training support for in-school and out-of-school youth by 
less than a billion dollars. It also adds close to $1 billion to the 
adult employment and training grant. The adult literacy and education 
grant is increased by less than $300 million.
  Mr. Chairman, these modest increases will ensure that more people get 
the skills they need to get off welfare--and, for heavens sake, it will 
help prevent people from having to go on welfare in the first place.
  Mr. Chairman, there has always been a bipartisan commitment to 
education in this House. Let us continue that commitment to education 
and training by voting for my amendment to raise the authorization 
levels in the CAREERS Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey].
  Mr. Chairman, I am much too young to have the noose come down around 
by neck and string me up on a scaffold someplace, and if I were to 
accept this amendment, I am sure that would happen because the mandate 
from the Committee on the Budget is different.
  What I will promise the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey] is 
to certainly do everything I can, serving on that conference, to make 
sure that we move to the Senate numbers. Their 602(b) of course is not 
as difficult as ours, and there is no one, probably, who feels more 
strongly that particularly the youth block certainly is in a great deal 
of need for an increased appropriation, and I will work in conference 
to move to their numbers, away from our numbers, but, as I said, I am 
too young to die.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLING. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman, ``I don't want you 
to die at all. I appreciate your consideration of this, and I know you 
will fight hard for it.''
  Mr. Chairman, we were on a roll; I think it ended.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey].
  The amendment was rejected.


                   amendment offered by mr. traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant:
       Page 121, after line 2, insert the following:

     SEC. 254. PURCHASE OF AMERICAN-MADE EQUIPMENT AND PRODUCTS.

       (a) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that, to the greatest extent practicable, all equipment and 
     products purchased with funds made available under this Act 
     should be American-made.
       (b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance 
     to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using 
     funds made available under this Act, the head of each Federal 
     agency, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to 
     such entity a notice describing the statement made in 
     subsection (a) by the Congress.

  Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, with all this talk of death and dying, I 
offer the standard Buy American amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we have Governors making decisions, chief officers of 
the State school boards making decisions, all kinds of decisions being 
made talking about welfare, talking about education. Mr. Chairman, if 
we pass my amendment, I do not know how much it is going to do, but 
maybe there will be a few more jobs, and people pay a few more taxes, 
and we will have a few more dollars to keep this train coming down the 
track.
  Mr. Chairman, this language has been added to every appropriation 
bill and to every authorizing bill in the Congress. It does not 
reinvent the wheel, but it does, in fact, encourage, to the most 
practical extent possible, that when people, regardless of who has 
jurisdictional authority to do so, expend the hard-earned Federal 
taxpayer dollars, they try, wherever possible, to buy, within the 
limits of the law, American-made products, made by American hands, who 
get American paychecks, pay American taxes. This is no walk in the pork 
around here.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, we will be very happy to accept the 
amendment on this side.
  Mr. Chairman, I would feel much better if at the end of paragraph 1 
where the gentleman has ``American made'' he would include ``and 
manufactured and purchased in Ohio and Pennsylvania.''
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, yes, I would accept the gentleman's 
tremendous amendment. His intellect amazes me.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I appreciate that and just take a couple minutes here.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling], who has handled this bill. There was a lot of contentious 
items coming in, and there has been an awful lot of headway that has 
been made, and I think the gentleman deserves a lot of credit for that. 
I really mean that.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri, the 
distinguished ranking member, who as well in the past has been a 
supporter of Buy American and Made in America. Hopefully he will 
maintain his record.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I have agreed with the gentleman in all of 
the other instances where he introduced a Buy American amendment, and I 
do not see any reason why I would disagree with him now. I think he is 
the champion of all Americans when it comes to Buy American.
  Mr. Chairman, I was not listening to at what point in the bill the 
gentleman offered his amendment. I was trying to get together the next 
amendment. But I am sure, if it is consistent with what he has been 
doing in the past, that I will be supportive.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that, and with that I say 
it would apply to the entire act, and with that I appreciate the 
support.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title II?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title III.
  The text of title III is as follows:
      TITLE III--ADULT EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSOLIDATION GRANT

     SEC. 301. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this title is to establish an efficient, 
     high-quality, and equitable system of employment, job 
     training, and related assistance designed to facilitate the 
     transition of adults into productive, high skills, private 
     sector employment.
     Subtitle A--Adult Employment and Training Consolidation Grant

     SEC. 311. AUTHORIZATION.

       (a) In General.--In the case of each State that in 
     accordance with the requirements of section 102 submits to 
     the Secretary of Labor (hereinafter in this title referred to 
     as the ``Secretary'') a State workforce development and 
     literacy plan under section 104, the Secretary shall provide 
     a grant to the State for the purpose of providing employment, 
     job training, and related assistance for adults in the State.
       (b) Amount.--The grant shall consist of the allotment 
     determined for the State under section 312.

     SEC. 312. ALLOTMENT AMONG STATES.

       (a) In General.--Of the amount appropriated pursuant to 
     section 4(a)(2) to carry out this title for a fiscal year, 
     the Secretary shall--
       (1) allot 85 percent of such amounts in accordance with 
     subsection (b); and
       (2) reserve 15 percent for use under subtitle B.
       (b) Allotment Among States.--
       (1) Reservation for the territories.--Of the amount 
     allotted under subsection (a)(1), the Secretary shall allot 
     not more than one quarter of one percent among the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, 
     Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
       (2) States.--After determining the amount to be allotted 
     under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall allot the remaining 
     amount to the remaining States so that each State receives an 
     amount that bears the same proportion to such remaining 
     amount as-- 

[[Page H9194]]

       (A) the amount allotted to each such State from allotments 
     under sections 202 and 302 of the Job Training Partnership 
     Act (29 U.S.C. 1602 and 1652) (as in effect before the date 
     of the enactment of this Act) for fiscal year 1995; bears to
       (B) the aggregate of the amounts allotted to all such 
     States from allotments under such sections for such fiscal 
     year.
       (c) Minimum Allotment.--No State shall receive less than 
     one-quarter of one percent of the amount available under this 
     title for a fiscal year. Amounts necessary for increasing 
     such payments to States to comply with the preceding sentence 
     shall be obtained by ratably reducing the amounts to be paid 
     to other States.

     SEC. 313. ALLOCATION WITHIN STATES.

       (a) Reservations for State Activities.--
       (1) In general.--The Governor of the State shall reserve 
     not more than 20 percent of the amount allotted to the State 
     under section 312(b) for a fiscal year for statewide 
     activities for employment, job training, and related 
     assistance for adults.
       (2) Mandatory activities.--Such activities shall include--
       (A) rapid response activities; and
       (B) additional assistance to areas that experience 
     disasters, mass layoffs or plant closings, or other events 
     which precipitate substantial increases in the number of 
     unemployed workers, to be expended in accordance with the 
     local plan of the relevant workforce development area.
       (3) Discretionary activities.--
       (A) In general.--Such activities may include--
       (i) subject to subparagraph (B), administration by the 
     State of programs under this subtitle;
       (ii) capacity building and technical assistance to local 
     workforce development areas, integrated career center 
     systems, and service providers, including the development and 
     training of staff and the development of exemplary program 
     activities;
       (iii) incentives for program coordination, performance 
     awards, and research and demonstrations;
       (iv) implementation of innovative incumbent worker training 
     programs, which may include the establishment and 
     implementation of an employer loan program to assist in 
     skills upgrading (in accordance with the requirements of 
     section 324);
       (v) implementation of experimentation, model activities, 
     pilot projects, and demonstration projects which further the 
     goals and purposes of this Act;
       (vi) additional assistance for the development and 
     implementation of the integrated career center system of the 
     State established in accordance with title I; and
       (vii) support for a common management information system as 
     described in section 109.
       (B) Limitation.--Not more than 25 percent of the amount 
     reserved by the Governor under paragraph (1) may be used for 
     administration by the State of programs under this subtitle.
       (b) Within State Allocation.--
       (1) In general.--The Governor of the State shall allocate 
     the remainder of the amount allotted to the State under 
     section 312(b) to workforce development areas designated 
     under title I of this Act, in accordance with paragraphs (1) 
     and (2) of such section, for the purpose of providing 
     employment, job training, and related services for adults in 
     accordance with section 315.
       (2) Within state formula.--
       (A) Establishment.--The Governor, through the collaborative 
     process under section 103 of this Act, and after consultation 
     with local chief elected officials in the local workforce 
     development area, shall develop a formula for the allocation 
     of 90 percent of the remainder of funds described in 
     paragraph (1), to workforce development areas, taking into 
     account--
       (i) poverty rates within each local workforce development 
     area, as determined by the State;
       (ii) unemployment rates within each local workforce 
     development area;
       (iii) the proportion of the State's adult population 
     residing within each local workforce development area; and
       (iv) such other factors as considered appropriate.
       (B) Additional factors.--In establishing such formula, the 
     Governor shall ensure that funds are distributed equitably 
     throughout the State, and that the factors described in 
     subparagraph (A) do not receive disproportionate weighting.
       (3) Within state discretionary allocation.--In addition, 
     the Governor is authorized to allocate 10 percent of the 
     remainder of funds described in paragraph (1) to workforce 
     development areas designated under title I of this Act. 
     Amounts may be allocated to such areas as determined by the 
     Governor.

     SEC. 314. ADDITIONAL STATE PLAN REQUIREMENTS.

       The State shall, as part of the State workforce development 
     and literacy plan under title I of this Act, submit to the 
     Secretary the following additional information:
       (1) A description of how the State will serve the 
     employment and training needs of dislocated workers, 
     economically disadvantaged individuals, older workers, 
     individuals with disabilities, displaced homemakers, 
     veterans, and individuals with multiple barriers to 
     employment (as determined by the State), including 
     individuals who are basic skills deficient.
       (2) A description of how the State will provide rapid 
     response assistance to workers experiencing dislocation as a 
     result of mass layoffs and plant closings, either through the 
     direct provision of services or through the transfer of funds 
     to local workforce development areas for the provision of 
     such services.

     SEC. 315. USE OF AMOUNTS.

       (a) Core Services.--Amounts allocated under section 313(b) 
     shall be used to provide core services to adults through 
     integrated career center systems in accordance with title I 
     of this Act.
       (b) Intensive Services.--
       (1) In general.--Amounts allocated under section 313(b) 
     shall be used to provide intensive services to adults--
       (A) who are unable to obtain employment through core 
     services under subsection (a); and
       (B) who have been determined to be in need of more 
     intensive services in order to gain employment.
       (2) Delivery of services.--Such intensive services shall be 
     provided--
       (A) directly through integrated career center systems in 
     accordance with title I of this Act; or
       (B) through contracts through such systems with service 
     providers approved by the local workforce development board, 
     which may include private, for-profit providers.
       (3) Types of services.--Such intensive services may include 
     the following:
       (A) Comprehensive and specialized assessments of the skill 
     levels and service needs of adults, which may include--
       (i) diagnostic testing and other assessment tools; and
       (ii) in-depth interviewing and evaluation to identify 
     employment barriers and appropriate employment goals.
       (B) Development of an individual employment plan, to 
     identify the employment goals, appropriate achievement 
     objectives, and the appropriate combination of services for 
     the adult to achieve the employment goal.
       (C) Group counseling.
       (D) Individual counseling and career planning.
       (E) Case management for adults receiving education and 
     training services under subsection (c) or supportive services 
     under subsection (d).
       (F) Follow-up counseling for adults placed in training or 
     employment, for up to 1 year.
       (c) Education and Training Services.--
       (1) In general.--Amounts allocated under section 313(b) 
     shall be used to provide education and training services to 
     adults--
       (A) who are unable to obtain employment through core 
     services under subsection (a);
       (B) who are in need of education and training services in 
     order to gain employment as a result of determinations made 
     through--
       (i) preliminary assessments under section 107(f)(1)(B) of 
     this Act; or
       (ii) comprehensive and specialized assessments under 
     subsection (b)(3)(A); and
       (C) who are unable to obtain other grant assistance for 
     such services, such as through Federal Pell Grants 
     established under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965.
       (2) Delivery of services.--Such education and training 
     services shall be provided through education and training 
     providers certified in accordance with title I of this Act.
       (3) Types of services.--Such education and training 
     services may include the following:
       (A) Basic skills training, including remedial education, 
     literacy training, and English literacy program instruction.
       (B) Occupational skills training, including training for 
     nontraditional employment.
       (C) On-the-job training.
       (D) Programs that combine workplace training with related 
     instruction.
       (E) Training programs operated by the private sector.
       (F) Skill upgrading and retraining.
       (G) Entrepreneurial training.
       (H) Employability training to enhance basic workplace 
     competencies.
       (I) Customized training conducted with a commitment by an 
     employer or group of employers to employ an individual upon 
     successful completion of the training.
       (4) Additional requirements.--
       (A) Use of career grants.--
       (i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii) and 
     clause (iii), education and training services under this 
     section shall be provided through the use of career grants in 
     accordance with this subsection, and shall be distributed to 
     eligible individuals through integrated career centers or 
     affiliated sites as described in section 107, and in 
     accordance with section 108 regarding the identification of 
     eligible education and training providers.
       (ii) Exceptions.--Education and training services 
     authorized under this title may be provided pursuant to a 
     contract for services in lieu of a career grant if--

       (I) such services are on-the-job training provided by an 
     employer;
       (II) the local workforce development board determines there 
     are an insufficient number of certified providers of 
     education and training services in the workforce development 
     area to accomplish the purposes of a career grant system;
       (III) the local workforce development board determines that 
     the certified providers of education and training in the 
     workforce development area are unable to provide effective 
     services to special participant populations; or
       (IV) the local workforce development board decides to enter 
     into a direct training 

[[Page H9195]]
     contract with a community based organization serving special 
     participant populations.

       (iii) Transition.--States may have up to three years from 
     the date of enactment of this Act to fully implement the 
     requirements of clause (i), but nothing shall prohibit states 
     from beginning such implementation at an earlier date.
       (B) Linkage to occupations in demand.--Education and 
     training services under this subsection shall be directly 
     linked to occupations for which there is a demand in the 
     local workforce development area, or in another area to which 
     an adult receiving such services is willing to relocate.
       (d) Additional Services.--
       (1) Supportive services.--Supportive services may be 
     provided for individuals--
       (A) who are receiving assistance under any of subsections 
     (a) through (c); and
       (B) who are unable to receive such services through other 
     programs providing such services.
       (2) Needs-related payments.--
       (A) In general.--Amounts allocated under section 313(b) may 
     be used to provide needs-related payments to adults who are 
     unemployed and do not qualify for (or have ceased to qualify 
     for) unemployment compensation for the purpose of enabling 
     such adults to participate in education and training programs 
     under subsection (c).
       (B) Additional eligibility requirements.--In addition to 
     the requirements contained in subparagraph (A), a dislocated 
     worker who has exhausted unemployment insurance benefits may 
     be eligible to receive needs-related payments under this 
     paragraph only if such worker was enrolled in education or 
     training by the end of the 8th week of the worker's initial 
     unemployment compensation benefit period, or, if later, by 
     the end of the 8th week after the worker is informed that a 
     short-term layoff will in fact exceed 6 months.
       (e) Priority.--Local workforce development boards shall 
     establish a process through which priority is given to 
     dislocated workers and economically disadvantaged 
     individuals, for receipt of services provided under 
     subsections (b) and (c), in the event that funds are limited 
     within the workforce development area.
       (f) Prohibition on Private Right of Action.--Nothing in 
     this section may be construed to establish a right for a 
     participant to bring an action to obtain services under a 
     program established under this section.
       (g) Limitations on Use of Funds.--Not more than 10 percent 
     of the funds provided under this title to a local workforce 
     development board may be used for administrative purposes.
                      Subtitle B--Federal Programs

     SEC. 321. NATIONAL DISCRETIONARY GRANTS.

       (a) Grants for Dislocated Workers.--
       (1) In general.--From amounts reserved under section 
     312(a)(2) for any fiscal year, the Secretary is authorized to 
     award national discretionary grants to address major economic 
     dislocations that result from plant closures, base closures, 
     or mass layoffs.
       (2) Application.--To receive a grant under this section, an 
     eligible entity shall submit an application to the Secretary 
     at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such 
     information as the Secretary determines is appropriate.
       (3) Eligible entities.--Grants under this section may be 
     awarded to--
       (A) the State;
       (B) a local workforce development board administering 
     assistance under this Act;
       (C) employers and employer associations;
       (D) worker-management transition assistance committees and 
     other employer-employee entities;
       (E) representatives of employees;
       (F) community development corporations and community-based 
     organizations; and
       (G) industry consortia.
       (b) Incentive Grants.--From amounts reserved under section 
     312(a)(2) for any fiscal year, the Secretary may provide 
     awards to States--
       (1) to assist in the implementation of exemplary statewide 
     workforce development system designs; and
       (2) for the achievement of exceptional performance in the 
     statewide workforce development system.

     SEC. 322. DISASTER RELIEF EMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--From amounts reserved under section 
     312(a)(2) for any fiscal year, the Secretary may provide 
     assistance to the Governor of any State within which is 
     located an area that has suffered an emergency or a major 
     disaster as defined in paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively, 
     of section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act (referred to in this section as the 
     ``disaster area'').
       (b) Use of Funds.--
       (1) Projects restricted to disaster areas.--Funds made 
     available under this section--
       (A) shall be used exclusively to provide employment on 
     projects to provide food, clothing, shelter, and other 
     humanitarian assistance for disaster victims and on projects 
     regarding demolition, cleanup, repair, renovation, and 
     reconstruction of damaged and destroyed structures, 
     facilities, and lands located within the disaster area; and
       (B) may be expended through public and private agencies and 
     organizations engaged in such projects.
       (2) Eligibility requirements.--An individual shall be 
     eligible to be offered disaster employment under this section 
     if such individual is a dislocated worker or is temporarily 
     or permanently laid off as a consequence of the disaster.
       (3) Limitations on disaster relief employment.--No 
     individual shall be employed under this part for more than 6 
     months for work related to recovery from a single natural 
     disaster.

     SEC. 323. RESEARCH, DEMONSTRATION, EVALUATION, AND CAPACITY 
                   BUILDING.

       (a) In General.--From amounts reserved under section 
     312(a)(2) for any fiscal year, the Secretary is authorized to 
     establish and carry out research, demonstration, and capacity 
     building activities in accordance with this section.
       (b) Activities.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out 
     the following activities under this section:
       (1) Research.--The Secretary is authorized to conduct 
     continuing research, which may include studies and other 
     methods and techniques, that will aid in the solution of the 
     employment and training problems of the United States. Such 
     studies may include the extent to which individuals who 
     participate in programs established under this title achieve 
     self-sufficiency as a result of such participation, including 
     the identification by State and locality, to the extent 
     practicable, of indicators measuring such self-sufficiency.
       (2) Demonstrations.--The Secretary is authorized to conduct 
     pilot and demonstration projects for the purpose of 
     developing and improving methods and techniques for 
     addressing employment and training needs which may include--
       (A) projects conducted jointly with the Department of 
     Defense to develop training programs utilizing computer-based 
     and other innovative learning technologies. The Secretary may 
     award grants and enter into contracts with appropriate 
     entities to carry out such projects; and
       (B) Projects which promote the use of distance learning, 
     enabling students to take courses through the use of 
     technology such as videos teleconferencing, computers, and 
     the internet.
       (3) Evaluation.--
       (A) Activities.--
       (i) Job training activities.--The Secretary shall provide 
     for the continuing evaluation of activities conducted under 
     this Act, including the use of controlled experiments using 
     experimental and control groups chosen by scientific random 
     assignment, and at a minimum, determine whether job training 
     and job placement programs effectively raise the hourly wage 
     rates of individuals receiving training through such 
     programs.
       (ii) Other programs.--The Secretary may conduct evaluations 
     of other federally funded employment-related activities 
     including programs administered under--

       (I) the Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49 et seq.);
       (II) the National Apprenticeship Act (29 U.S.C. 50 et 
     seq.);
       (III) the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3001 et 
     seq.); and
       (IV) the Federal unemployment insurance program under 
     titles III, IX, and XII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     501 et seq., 1101 et seq., and 1321 et seq.).

       (B) Effectiveness.--The Secretary shall evaluate the 
     effectiveness of programs authorized under this Act with 
     respect to--
       (i) the statutory goals;
       (ii) the performance standards established by the 
     Secretary; and
       (iii) the extent to which such programs enhance the 
     employment and earnings of participants, reduce income 
     support costs, improve the employment competencies of 
     participants in comparison to comparable persons who did not 
     participate in such programs, and to the extent feasible, 
     increase the level of total employment over the level that 
     would have existed in the absence of such programs.
       (4) National partnership and special training.--The 
     Secretary may award special grants to eligible entities to 
     carry out activities that are most appropriately administered 
     at the national level. Such activities may include--
       (A) partnerships with national organizations with special 
     expertise in developing, organizing, and administering 
     employment and training services at the national, State, and 
     local levels, such as industry and labor associations, public 
     interests groups, community-based organizations 
     representative of groups that encounter special difficulties 
     in the labor market, in education and training; and
       (B) activities that--
       (i) address industry-wide skill shortages;
       (ii) meet training needs that are best addressed on a 
     multistate basis;
       (iii) further the goals of increasing the competitiveness 
     of the United States labor force;
       (iv) require technical expertise available at the national 
     level to serve the needs of particular client groups that 
     encounter significant barriers to employment and who the 
     Secretary determines require special assistance; and
       (v) promote and experiment with model activities, pilot 
     projects, and demonstration projects which further the goals 
     and purposes of this Act.
       (5) Capacity building and technical assistance.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall provide, through 
     grants, contracts, or other arrangements, staff training and 
     technical assistance to States, local workforce development 
     boards, career centers, communities, business and labor 
     organizations, service 

[[Page H9196]]
     providers, industry consortia, and other entities, to enhance their 
     capacity to develop and deliver effective employment and 
     training services.
       (B) Activities.--The staff training and technical 
     assistance authorized under subparagraph (A) may include--
       (i) development of management information systems;
       (ii) development and maintenance of a national capacity 
     building, information and dissemination network; and
       (iii) grants for the replication of successful employment 
     and training models and activities.

     SEC. 324. WORKFORCE SKILLS AND DEVELOPMENT LOANS.

       (a) Authorization.--
       (1) In general.--From amounts reserved under section 
     312(a)(2) for any fiscal year, the Secretary of Labor may use 
     a portion of such amounts to provide grants to States to 
     provide loans to eligible entities described in paragraph (2) 
     to assist such entities in providing skills upgrading.
       (2) Eligible entities.--An eligible entity described in 
     this paragraph is--
       (A) an employer;
       (B) a representative of employees;
       (C) a business association;
       (D) a trade organization; or
       (E) a consortium consisting of--
       (i) more than 1 of the entities described in subparagraphs 
     (A) through (D); or
       (ii) an institution of higher education (as such term is 
     defined in section 481 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1088) which continues to meet the eligibility and 
     certification requirements under section 498 of such Act) and 
     1 or more of the entities described in subparagraphs (A) 
     through (D).
       (b) Application.--The Secretary may provide a grant to a 
     State under subsection (a) only if such State submits to the 
     Secretary an application which contains such information as 
     the Secretary may reasonably require.
       (c) Use of Amounts.--A State shall use amounts received 
     from a grant under subsection (a) to establish a loan 
     guarantee program to assist eligible entities described in 
     paragraph (2) of such subsection to provide skills upgrading. 
     In carrying out such program, the State shall meet the 
     following requirements:
       (1) Establishment of reserve fund for loan guarantees.--The 
     State shall establish a reserve fund from amounts received 
     from such grant for the purpose of making commitments to 
     guarantee the payment of principal and interest on loans made 
     by financial institutions to such eligible entities to 
     provide skills upgrading.
       (2) Criteria for loan guarantees.--The State, in 
     conjunction with appropriate financial institutions, shall 
     establish and publish criteria for providing loan guarantees 
     to eligible entities under the program, including criteria 
     that provides for the following:
       (A) A loan guarantee may be issued under the program only 
     if, at the time such guarantee is issued the eligible entity 
     agrees to pay as an insurance premium an amount equal to 1 
     percent of the principal received by such entity under the 
     loan to the State's reserve fund.
       (B)(i) Subject to clause (ii), the eligible entity will use 
     amounts received from the loan to provide skills upgrading 
     for mid- and lower-level employees, which may include--
       (I) training in total quality management, statistical 
     process control, production techniques, office automation, 
     materials resource planning; and
       (II) training to improve basic skills, including reading, 
     writing, and arithmetic.
       (ii) In providing such skills upgrading, the eligible 
     entity shall give priority to employees who--
       (I) directly produce or deliver goods or services; or
       (II) are in danger of being terminated or laid off as a 
     result of modernization in the workplace, corporate 
     downsizing, foreign or domestic competition, or Federal 
     policies adversely affecting 1 or more industries.
       (C) Amounts from a loan shall not be used to pay the wages 
     or other benefits of any employee receiving assistance under 
     the program.
       (3) Payment by state to financial institutions in cases of 
     default.--
       (A) In general.--In accordance with criteria developed by 
     the Secretary, the State shall make payments from the State's 
     reserve fund to financial institutions that have provided 
     loans to eligible entities that have defaulted on such loans 
     for the purpose of reimbursing such institutions for the 
     amount of principal and interest remaining unpaid to the 
     institutions by reason of such default.
       (B) No full faith and credit of the united states.--Loans 
     provided by financial institutions to eligible entities under 
     loan guarantee programs under this section shall not be 
     obligations of, or guaranteed in any respect by, the United 
     States.
       (4) Interest from amounts in reserve fund.--Any interest 
     earned from amounts in the State's reserve fund shall be 
     credited to such fund.
       (d) Federal and State Share.--
       (1) Federal share.--The Federal share under this section 
     may not exceed 50 percent of the total cost of the program 
     established under subsection (c) for any fiscal year.
       (2) State share.--The State share shall be provided from 
     non-Federal sources and may be in cash or in-kind, fairly 
     evaluated.

     SEC. 325. EMPLOYMENT, TRAINING, AND EDUCATION ASSISTANCE FOR 
                   NATIVE AMERICANS.

       (a) Authorization.--From amounts reserved under section 
     4(a)(2) for any fiscal year, there shall be reserved one 
     quarter of one percent, or $85,000,000, whichever is less, to 
     provide grants to, or enter into contracts or cooperative 
     agreements with, Indian tribes and tribal organizations, 
     tribally-controlled colleges, tribally-controlled 
     postsecondary vocational institutions, Indian-controlled 
     organizations serving off-reservation areas, Alaska Native 
     village and regional entities serving areas as described in 
     the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and Hawaiian Native-
     controlled organizations to provide employment, training, 
     vocational rehabilitation, library services, and education 
     assistance for Native Americans.
       (b) Transfer of Authority for Vocational Education 
     Activities.--In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary of 
     Labor may enter into an agreement with the Secretary of 
     Education to carry out any portion of assistance under such 
     subsection devoted to vocational educational activities, 
     including support for the United Tribes Technical College and 
     Crownpoint Institute of Technology.
       (c) Consolidation of Funds.--Entities receiving assistance 
     under subsection (a) may consolidate such assistance with 
     assistance received from related programs in accordance with 
     the provisions of the Indian Employment, Training and Related 
     Services Demonstration Act (Public Law 102-477).
       (d) Regulations.--The Secretary shall consult with Indian, 
     Alaska Native and Hawaiian Native groups in establishing 
     regulations to carry out this section, including performance 
     standards for entities receiving assistance under subsection 
     (a), taking into account the economic circumstances of such 
     groups.

     SEC. 326. EMPLOYMENT, TRAINING, AND EDUCATION ASSISTANCE FOR 
                   MIGRANT AND SEASONAL FARMWORKERS.

       (a) Authorization.--
       (1) In general.--From amounts reserved under section 
     4(a)(2) for any fiscal year, there shall be reserved one 
     quarter of one percent, or $85,000,000, whichever is less, to 
     provide grants to, or enter into contracts or cooperative 
     agreements with, entities described in paragraph (2) to 
     provide employment, training, and education assistance for 
     migrant and seasonal farmworkers.
       (2) Entities described.--An entity described in this 
     paragraph is an entity the Secretary determines to have the 
     capacity to administer effectively a diversified workforce 
     development program for migrant and seasonal farmworkers.
       (b) Use of Amounts.--An entity shall use amounts received 
     under subsection (a) to provide employment, training, 
     educational development, high school equivalency, 
     postsecondary education assistance, vocational 
     rehabilitation, literacy, English as a second language, work-
     based education and development, worker safety training, 
     employability enhancements, emergency or other disaster 
     relief, housing, technical assistance, outreach, intake, 
     assessment, follow-up, stipend support, supportive services, 
     other needs-based assistance, self-employment and related 
     business enterprise development education, and the management 
     of a database on participating migrant and seasonal 
     farmworkers.
       (c) Regulations.--The Secretary shall consult with seasonal 
     and migrant farmworker groups in establishing regulations to 
     carry out this section, including performance standards for 
     entities receiving assistance under subsection (a)(2), taking 
     into account the economic circumstances of such groups.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title III?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title IV.
  The text of title IV is as follows:
 TITLE IV--ADULT EDUCATION AND FAMILY LITERACY CONSOLIDATION GRANT AND 
          LIBRARY SERVICES AND TECHNOLOGY CONSOLIDATION GRANT

     SEC. 401. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds as follows:
       (1) According to the 1990 census, 21 percent of our 
     Nation's adults (more than 38 million persons) lack a high 
     school credential or are limited English proficient.
       (2) The National Adult Literacy Survey, conducted under the 
     Adult Education Act, found that 20 percent of all adults in 
     the United States, or about 40 million people, have minimal 
     levels of literacy skills and that the lack of such skills is 
     related to unemployment, low wages, and fewer weeks worked.
       (3) The success of State efforts to reform and improve 
     public education are dependent on the ability of the United 
     States to break intergenerational cycles of illiteracy and 
     inadequate education by ensuring that parents possess a 
     strong educational foundation and, as the first and most 
     continuous teachers of their children, model for, and instill 
     in, their children a commitment to family literacy and life-
     long learning.
       (4) Generations of immigrants have contributed to our 
     communities and our economy, but for them to continue to do 
     so given recent technologies and the competitive global 
     economy, they must master English as rapidly as possible.
       (5) Studies have found that incarcerated adults are twice 
     as likely as nonincarcerated adults to lack a good education 
     and that such lack is a significant statistical indicator of 
     recidivism.

[[Page H9197]]

       (6) Certain short-term and long-term goals of the Nation 
     may not be met unless the United States improves its current 
     system of adult education and life-long learning through 
     Federal leadership.

     SEC. 402. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this title:
       (1) Correctional education agency.--The term ``correctional 
     education agency'' means an entity that provides programs for 
     criminal offenders in corrections institutions and for other 
     institutionalized individuals which include academic programs 
     for basic education, special education, bilingual or English 
     language instruction, vocational training, library 
     development, corrections education programs, guidance and 
     counseling, and other supportive services for criminal 
     offenders which may emphasize coordination of educational 
     services with educational institutions, community-based 
     organizations of demonstrative effectiveness, and the private 
     sector, designed to provide education and training.
       (2) Educationally disadvantaged adult.--The term 
     ``educationally disadvantaged adult'' means an adult who--
       (A) demonstrates basic skills equivalent to or below that 
     of students at the fifth grade level; or
       (B) has been placed in the lowest or beginning level of an 
     adult education program when that program does not use grade 
     level equivalencies as a measure of students' basic skills.
       (3) Family literacy services.--The term ``family literacy 
     services'' means services that are of sufficient intensity in 
     terms of hours, and of sufficient duration, to make 
     sustainable changes in a family and that integrate all of the 
     following activities:
       (A) Interactive literacy activities between parents and 
     their children.
       (B) Training for parents on how to be their children's 
     primary teacher and full partners in the education of their 
     children.
       (C) Parent literacy training.
       (D) An age-appropriate education program for children.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Education.
  Subtitle A--Adult Education and Family Literacy Consolidation Grant

     SEC. 411. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this subtitle are to assist States to 
     provide--
       (1) to adults, the basic educational skills necessary for 
     employment and self-sufficiency;
       (2) to adults who are parents, the educational skills 
     necessary to be full partners in the educational development 
     of their children;
       (3) to adults, the basic English language skills necessary 
     to participate in the civic, social, and economic life of the 
     United States; and
       (4) to adults, the opportunity to attain a high school 
     degree or its equivalent in order to permit them to pursue 
     further education and training or improve their family and 
     work situations.

                           CHAPTER 1--FUNDING

     SEC. 421. RESERVATIONS FROM AMOUNTS APPROPRIATED.

       (a) National Institute for Literacy.--For any fiscal year, 
     the Secretary shall reserve $4,500,000 of the amount 
     appropriated under section 4(a)(3) to carry out the 
     activities of the National Institute for Literacy described 
     in section 441.
       (b) National Leadership Activities.--For any fiscal year, 
     the Secretary shall reserve $4,500,000 of the amount 
     appropriated under section 4(a)(3) to establish and carry out 
     the program of national leadership and evaluation activities 
     described in section 442.

     SEC. 422. ALLOTMENT.

       (a) Initial Allotment.--From the sums available for the 
     purpose of making grants under chapter 2 for any fiscal year, 
     the Secretary shall allot--
       (1) $100,000 each to Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth 
     of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands; and
       (2) $250,000 to each of the other States.
       (b) Additional Allotment.--
       (1) In general.--From the remainder of the sums described 
     in subsection (a) after the application of the subsection, 
     the Secretary shall allot to each State an amount which bears 
     the same ratio to such remainder as the number of qualifying 
     adults in the State bears to the number of such adults in all 
     States.
       (2) Qualifying adult.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     term ``qualifying adult'' means an adult who--
       (A) is at least 16 years of age, but less than 61 years of 
     age;
       (B) is beyond the age of compulsory school attendance under 
     State law;
       (C) does not have a certificate of graduation from a school 
     providing secondary education (or its equivalent); and
       (D) is not currently enrolled in elementary or secondary 
     school.

                      CHAPTER 2--GRANTS TO STATES

     SEC. 431. REQUIREMENT TO MAKE GRANTS.

       For fiscal year 1997 and subsequent fiscal years, the 
     Secretary shall make a grant to a State in an amount equal to 
     the initial and additional allotments of the State for the 
     year if the State--
       (1) has satisfied the requirements of title I and section 
     433(a)(1);
       (2) agrees not to expend the grant for any purpose other 
     than in accordance with section 432;
       (3) agrees to satisfy the grant requirements in section 
     433(a)(2) and 433(b); and
       (4) agrees not to expend the grant for the purpose of 
     supporting or providing programs, services, or activities for 
     individuals who are not adults, except if such programs, 
     services, or activities are related to family literacy 
     services.

     SEC. 432. USES OF FUNDS.

       (a) State Uses of Funds.--
       (1) Grants to serve target populations.--
       (A) In general.--Of the funds paid to a State under this 
     title for fiscal year 1998 and subsequent fiscal years, 3 
     percent shall be distributed as performance grants made by 
     the State on a competitive basis, and consistent with 
     subsection (b) and section 433(b)(2), to local service 
     providers that have provided, during the immediately 
     preceding fiscal year, adult education or family literacy 
     services to the target populations described in subparagraph 
     (C).
       (B) Local service providers.--The local service providers 
     referred to in subparagraph (A) may include the following:
       (i) Local educational agencies.
       (ii) Correctional educational agencies.
       (iii) Community-based organizations.
       (iv) Public or private nonprofit agencies.
       (v) Institutions of higher education.
       (vi) Libraries.
       (vii) Other institutions that the State determines to have 
     the ability to provide literacy services to adults and 
     families.
       (C) Target populations.--The target populations referred to 
     in subparagraph (A) are the following:
       (i) Adults with more than one barrier to self-sufficiency, 
     such as being unemployed or an educationally disadvantaged 
     adult.
       (ii) Families on public assistance (as determined by the 
     State).
       (iii) Parents who are educationally disadvantaged adults 
     and who have a child who is less than 8 years of age.
       (iv) Adults who are individuals with disabilities or who 
     have similar special needs.
       (2) Grants to local service providers.--Of the funds paid 
     to a State under this subtitle for any fiscal year that 
     remain after the application of paragraph (1), at least 85 
     percent shall be distributed as grants made by the State on a 
     competitive basis, and consistent with subsection (b) and 
     section 433(b)(2), to local service providers to establish, 
     conduct, or expand programs, services, or activities to 
     achieve a purpose of this subtitle. Such local service 
     providers may include the local service providers described 
     in paragraph (1)(B).
       (3) Other state activities.--A State may use not more than 
     12 percent of the funds paid to the State under this subtitle 
     for any fiscal year that remain after the application of 
     paragraph (1) for one or more of the following purposes:
       (A) The establishment or operation of professional 
     development programs to improve the quality of instruction 
     provided in local adult education and literacy programs, 
     including instruction provided by volunteers.
       (B) The provision of technical assistance to local service 
     providers.
       (C) The provision of technology assistance to local service 
     providers to enable them to improve the quality of their 
     programs, services, and activities that achieve a purpose of 
     this subtitle, including--
       (i) providing hardware and software;
       (ii) paying for service connection fees associated with 
     gaining access to computerized databases; and
       (iii) upgrading the technological capabilities of local 
     service providers to improve the quality of their services 
     and to assist them in providing services on a flexible 
     schedule that meets the needs of diverse populations.
       (D) The support of State or regional networks of literacy 
     resource centers that--
       (i) enhance the coordination of literacy services across 
     public and private programs and State agencies;
       (ii) enhance the capacity of the State and local service 
     providers to provide literacy services through the diffusion 
     and adoption of state-of-the-art teaching methods and 
     technologies;
       (iii) provide linkages between the National Institute for 
     Literacy established under section 441 and local service 
     providers for the sharing of literacy information, research, 
     and resources;
       (iv) encourage government and industry partnerships; and
       (v) provide training and technical assistance to literacy 
     instructors in reading instruction, the use of state-of-the-
     art methodologies, instructional materials, and technologies, 
     and professional development.
       (E) Monitoring and evaluating the quality of, and the 
     improvement in, services and activities conducted with 
     Federal financial assistance under this subtitle, including 
     carrying out section 433(a)(2).
       (F) The support of a common management information system 
     as described in section 109.
       (G) Carrying out other activities of statewide significance 
     that promote the purposes of this Act.
       (4) Administrative expenses.--For any fiscal year, a State 
     may use not more than 3 percent of the funds paid to the 
     State under this subtitle that remain after the application 
     of paragraph (1) or $50,000, whichever is greater, for--
       (A) planning, administration, and interagency coordination 
     associated with a grant under this subtitle; and
       (B) support for integrated career center systems described 
     in section 107.

[[Page H9198]]

       (b) Local Uses of Funds.--A State shall require that a 
     local service provider that receives a grant from the State 
     under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) use the grant to 
     establish or operate one or more programs that provide 
     instruction or services within one or more of the following 
     categories:
       (1) Adult basic education that is designed for an adult 
     who--
       (A) has minimal competence in reading, writing, or 
     computation;
       (B) is not sufficiently competent in reading, writing, or 
     computation to meet the requirements of adult life in the 
     United States; or
       (C) is not sufficiently competent in speaking, reading, or 
     writing the English language to obtain employment 
     commensurate with the adult's intellectual abilities.
       (2) Adult secondary education that is designed for an adult 
     who is literate and can function in everyday life, but who--
       (A) has not acquired basic educational skills, including 
     reading, writing, and computation; or
       (B) does not have a certificate of graduation from a school 
     providing education to students in grade 12, or its 
     equivalent.
       (3) English literacy instruction that is designed for an 
     adult--
       (A) who--
       (i) has limited ability in speaking, reading, writing, or 
     understanding the English language and whose native language 
     is a language other than English; or
       (ii) lives in a family or community environment where a 
     language other than English is the dominant language; and
       (B) who, by reason of a condition described in subparagraph 
     (A), has sufficient difficulty reading, writing, or 
     understanding the English language that the adult is unable--
       (i) to learn successfully in a classroom where the language 
     of instruction is English; or
       (ii) to participate fully in the society of the United 
     States.
       (4) Family literacy services.
       (c) Authorization to Receive Payments From Other 
     Programs.--A local service provider that receives a grant 
     from a State under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a), 
     and that provides adult education and literacy services to an 
     adult who was referred to the provider by a program supported 
     under title II or III, may receive payment for the services 
     from the program, either in the form of a career grant or by 
     some other means.

     SEC. 433. ADDITIONAL GRANT REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Goals, Progress Indicators, Performance Measures.--
       (1) Planning requirements.--A State that desires to receive 
     a grant under this subtitle shall accomplish the following:
       (A) Establish, through the collaborative process described 
     in section 103, measurable goals for improving literacy 
     levels, retention in literacy programs, and long-term 
     learning gains of individuals in the State.
       (B) Based on such goals and the performance measures 
     described in section 110(f), establish, through such 
     collaborative process, progress indicators to be used to 
     evaluate the performance of local service providers receiving 
     a grant under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 432(a).
       (C) Describe such goals and progress indicators in the 
     State workforce development and literacy plan submitted to 
     the Secretary under section 104.
       (2) Implementation requirements.--A State that receives a 
     grant under this subtitle shall accomplish the following:
       (A) With respect to each local service provider receiving a 
     grant under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 432(a), based on 
     the goals and progress indicators established under paragraph 
     (1), measure the performance measures described in section 
     110(f) and use the data produced by such measurement to 
     improve the quality of services provided to program 
     participants or service recipients.
       (B) Beginning on the date that is 2 years after the first 
     date that a local service provider receives a grant under 
     paragraph (1) or (2) of section 432(a), annually assess the 
     degree to which the provider is meeting or exceeding the 
     progress indicators applicable to the provider.
       (C) Annually report to the Secretary on the performance 
     measures described in section 434 for each category described 
     in such section.
       (b) Other Requirements.--A State that receives a grant 
     under this subtitle shall ensure the following:
       (1) Expenditures of non-federal funds.--For any fiscal year 
     for which a grant is made to the State under this subtitle, 
     the State shall expend, on programs and activities relating 
     to adult education and family literacy services, an amount, 
     derived from sources other than the Federal Government, equal 
     to 25 percent of the State's initial and additional 
     allotments for the year.
       (2) Priority for planning with boards and systems.--In 
     awarding grants to local service providers under paragraph 
     (1) or (2) of section 432(a), the State shall give priority 
     to providers that demonstrate joint planning with local 
     workforce development boards and integrated career center 
     systems.
       (3) Equitable access.--Local educational agencies, public 
     or private nonprofit agencies, community-based organizations, 
     correctional education agencies, institutions of higher 
     education, libraries, and institutions which serve 
     educationally disadvantaged adults shall be provided direct 
     and equitable access to Federal funds provided under this 
     subtitle in accordance with this subtitle.
       (4) Payments by local workforce development boards to local 
     service providers.--A local service provider that receives a 
     grant from a State under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 
     432(a) may negotiate with a local workforce development board 
     with respect to receipt of payments for adult education and 
     literacy services provided by the provider to adults referred 
     to the provider by a program supported under title II or III.

                      CHAPTER 3--NATIONAL PROGRAMS

     SEC. 441. NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LITERACY.

       (a) Establishment.--
       (1) In general.--There shall be established a National 
     Institute for Literacy (in this section referred to as the 
     ``Institute''). The Institute shall be administered under the 
     terms of an interagency agreement entered into by the 
     Secretary of Education with the Secretary of Labor and the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this section 
     referred to as the ``Interagency Group''). The Secretary may 
     include in the Institute any research and development center, 
     institute, or clearinghouse established within the Department 
     of Education whose purpose is determined by the Secretary to 
     be related to the purpose of the Institute.
       (2) Board recommendations.--The Interagency Group shall 
     consider the recommendations of the National Institute for 
     Literacy Advisory Board (in this section referred to as the 
     ``Board'') established under subsection (d) in planning the 
     goals of the Institute and in the implementation of any 
     programs to achieve such goals.
       (3) Daily operations.--The daily operations of the 
     Institute shall be carried out by the Director of the 
     Institute appointed under subsection (g).
       (b) Duties.--
       (1) In general.--The Institute shall--
       (A) provide national leadership for the improvement and 
     expansion of the system for delivery of literacy services;
       (B) coordinate the delivery of such services;
       (C) support the creation of new methods of offering 
     improved services;
       (D) serve as a national resource for adult education and 
     family literacy services by providing to the public the best 
     and most current information available on the subjects; and
       (E) assist States in developing levels of performance.
       (2) Authorized activities.--In order to carry out the 
     duties described in paragraph (1), the Institute may--
       (A) establish a national electronic database of information 
     that includes--
       (i) information on--

       (I) effective practices in the provision of literacy and 
     basic skills instruction;
       (II) public and private literacy and basic skills programs 
     and Federal, State, and local policies affecting the 
     provision of literacy services at the national, State, and 
     local levels; and
       (III) technical assistance, meetings, conferences, and 
     other opportunities that lead to the improvement of literacy 
     and basic skills services; and

       (ii) a communication network for literacy programs, 
     providers, and students;
       (B) coordinate support for the provision of literacy and 
     basic skills services across Federal agencies and at the 
     State and local level;
       (C) coordinate the support of research and development on 
     literacy and basic skills in families and adults across 
     Federal agencies and carry out basic and applied research and 
     development on topics that are not being investigated by 
     other organizations or agencies;
       (D) collect and disseminate information on methods of 
     advancing literacy that show promise of success; and
       (E) assist in the development of policy with respect to 
     literacy and basic skills.
       (3) Grants, contracts, and agreements.--The Institute may 
     enter into contracts or cooperative agreements with, or make 
     grants to, individuals, public or private institutions, 
     agencies, organizations, or consortia of such institutions, 
     agencies, or organizations to carry out the activities of the 
     Institute. Such grants, contracts, or agreements shall be 
     subject to the laws and regulations that generally apply to 
     grants, contracts, or agreements entered into by Federal 
     agencies.
       (c) Literacy Leadership.--
       (1) Fellowships.--The Institute, in consultation with the 
     Board, may award fellowships, with such stipends and 
     allowances as the Director considers necessary, to 
     outstanding individuals pursuing careers in adult education 
     or literacy in the areas of instruction, management, 
     research, or innovation.
       (2) Use of fellowships.--Fellowships awarded under this 
     subsection shall be used, under the auspices of the 
     Institute, to engage in research, education, training, 
     technical assistance, or other activities to advance the 
     field of adult education or literacy, including the training 
     of volunteer literacy providers at the national, State, or 
     local level.
       (3) Interns and volunteers.--The Institute, in consultation 
     with the Board, may award paid and unpaid internships to 
     individuals seeking to assist the Institute in carrying out 
     its mission. Notwithstanding section 1342 of title 31, United 
     States Code, the Institute may accept and use voluntary and 

[[Page H9199]]
     uncompensated services as the Institute determines necessary.
       (d) National Institute for Literacy Advisory Board.--
       (1) Establishment.--
       (A) In general.--There shall be a National Institute for 
     Literacy Advisory Board. The Board shall consist of 10 
     individuals appointed by the President with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate from individuals who--
       (i) are not otherwise officers or employees of the Federal 
     Government; and
       (ii) are representative of entities or groups described in 
     subparagraph (B).
       (B) Entities or groups described.--The entities or groups 
     referred to in subparagraph (A) are--
       (i) literacy organizations and providers of literacy 
     services, including--

       (I) nonprofit providers of literacy services;
       (II) providers of programs and services involving English 
     language instruction; and
       (III) providers of services receiving assistance under this 
     subtitle;

       (ii) businesses that have demonstrated interest in literacy 
     programs;
       (iii) literacy students;
       (iv) experts in the area of literacy research;
       (v) State and local governments; and
       (vi) representatives of employees.
       (2) Duties.--The Board shall--
       (A) make recommendations concerning the appointment of the 
     Director and staff of the Institute;
       (B) provide independent advice on the operation of the 
     Institute; and
       (C) receive reports from the Interagency Group and the 
     Director.
       (3) Terms.--
       (A) In general.--Each member of the Board shall be 
     appointed for a term of 3 years, except that the initial 
     terms for members may be 1, 2, or 3 years in order to 
     establish a rotation in which \1/3\ of the members are 
     selected each year.
       (B) Vacancy appointments.--Any member appointed to fill a 
     vacancy occurring before the expiration of the term for which 
     the member's predecessor was appointed shall be appointed 
     only for the remainder of that term. A member may serve after 
     the expiration of that members' term until a successor has 
     taken office. A vacancy in the Board shall be filled in the 
     manner in which the original appointment was made. A vacancy 
     in the Board shall not affect the powers of the Board.
       (4) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Board shall 
     constitute a quorum but a lesser number may hold hearings. 
     Any recommendation may be passed only by a majority of its 
     members present.
       (5) Chairperson and vice chairperson.--The chairperson and 
     vice chairperson of the Board shall be elected by the 
     members. The term of office of the chairperson and vice 
     chairperson shall be 1 year.
       (6) Meetings.--The Board shall meet at the call of the 
     chairperson or a majority of its members.
       (e) Gifts, Bequests, and Devises.--The Institute may 
     accept, administer, and use gifts or donations of services, 
     money, or property, both real and personal.
       (f) Mails.--The Board and the Institute may use the United 
     States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions 
     as other departments and agencies of the United States.
       (g) Staff.--The Interagency Group, after considering 
     recommendations made by the Board, shall appoint and fix the 
     pay of a Director.
       (h) Applicability of Certain Civil Service Laws.--The 
     Director and staff of the Institute may be appointed without 
     regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, 
     governing appointments in the competitive service, and may be 
     paid without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and 
     subchapter III of chapter 53 of that title relating to 
     classification and General Schedule pay rates, except that an 
     individual so appointed may not receive pay in excess of the 
     maximum rate payable under section 5376 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (i) Experts and Consultants.--The Board and the Institute 
     may procure temporary and intermittent services under section 
     3109(b) of title 5, United States Code.
       (j) Report.--The Institute shall submit a biennial report 
     to the Interagency Group and the Congress.

     SEC. 442. NATIONAL LEADERSHIP ACTIVITIES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish and carry 
     out a program of national leadership and evaluation 
     activities to enhance the quality of adult education and 
     family literacy programs nationwide.
       (b) Required Activity.--
       (1) In general.--The program of national leadership and 
     evaluation activities under subsection (a) shall include a 
     national evaluation, conducted by the Secretary, of the 
     programs and activities carried out by States and local 
     service providers with Federal funds received under this 
     subtitle. Such evaluation shall include information on the 
     following:
       (A) The manner in which States and local service providers 
     use Federal funds, including the manner in which States 
     allocate such funds among such providers.
       (B) The manner in which States establish goals and 
     performance standards and use such goals and standards to 
     manage and improve programs.
       (C) The effectiveness of the funds used under subparagraphs 
     (B) and (C) of section 432(a)(3).
       (D) The manner in which economically disadvantaged 
     individuals and educationally disadvantaged adults are being 
     served by States and local service providers.
       (E) The coordination between programs and activities 
     carried out with Federal funds received under titles II and 
     III and programs and activities carried out with Federal 
     funds received under this subtitle.
       (F) The percentage of individuals receiving a service from 
     an integrated career center system who are referred by such 
     system to a local service provider providing adult education 
     or literacy services.
       (2) Report.--Not later than September 30, 2001, the 
     Secretary shall provide to the Congress and publicly publish 
     the results of the evaluation conducted under paragraph (1).
       (c) Authorized Activities.--
       (1) In general.--The program of national leadership and 
     evaluation activities under subsection (a) may include the 
     following:
       (A) Assisting States in developing levels of performance.
       (B) Research and development.
       (C) Demonstration of model and innovative programs.
       (D) Evaluations, including independent evaluations of adult 
     education and family literacy programs carried out with 
     financial assistance received pursuant to this subtitle.
       (E) Data collection.
       (F) Professional development.
       (G) Technical assistance to States and local service 
     providers receiving Federal financial assistance pursuant to 
     this subtitle.
       (H) Making grants to State or regional networks of literacy 
     resource centers described in section 432(a)(3)(D).
       (I) Other activities to enhance the quality of adult 
     education and family literacy programs nationwide.
       (2) Grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements.--The 
     Secretary may carry out the activities described in paragraph 
     (1) directly or through grants, contracts, and cooperative 
     agreements.
    Subtitle B--Library Services and Technology Consolidation Grant

     SEC. 451. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this subtitle are--
       (1) to consolidate Federal library service programs;
       (2) to improve public access to information through 
     electronic networks; and
       (3) to provide linkages among and between libraries and 
     integrated career center systems.

     SEC. 452. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this subtitle $110,000,000 for each of the fiscal 
     years 1997 through 2002.
       (b) Advance Notice of Funding.--For the purpose of 
     affording adequate notice of funding available under this 
     subtitle, an appropriation to carry out this subtitle is 
     authorized to be included in an appropriation Act for the 
     fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which such 
     appropriation is first available for obligation.

     SEC. 453. ALLOTMENTS.

       (a) Initial Allotments.--
       (1) In general.--From the sums appropriated under section 
     452 for any fiscal year, the Secretary shall allot--
       (A) $40,000 each to Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth 
     of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands; and
       (B) $200,000 to each of the other States.
       (2) Ratable reduction.--If the sums appropriated under 
     section 452 for any fiscal year are insufficient to pay all 
     of the allotments under paragraph (1), each such allotment 
     shall be ratably reduced.
       (b) Additional Allotments.--
       (1) In general.--From the remainder of the sums 
     appropriated under section 452 for any fiscal year after the 
     application of subsection (a), the Secretary shall allot to 
     each State an amount which bears the same ratio to such 
     remainder as the population of the State bears to the 
     population of all States.
       (2) Determination of population of states.--For the purpose 
     of this subsection, the population of each State, and the 
     total population of all States, shall be determined by the 
     Secretary on the basis of the most recent census data 
     available to the Secretary, and the Secretary shall use for 
     such purpose, if available, the annual interim current census 
     data produced by the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to 
     section 181 of title 13, United States Code.

     SEC. 454. GRANTS TO STATES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall make a grant for a 
     fiscal year to a State if the State--
       (1) has submitted to the Secretary for the year an annual 
     application that has been approved by the Secretary under 
     section 456; and
       (2) has entered into a written agreement with the Secretary 
     that--
       (A) the State will provide 100 percent of the funds paid to 
     the State under this subtitle for the year to the State 
     library administrative agency for the State;
       (B) such agency will be required to use such funds to carry 
     out activities that--
       (i) are described in such annual application;
       (ii) achieve the purposes of this subtitle; and
       (iii) satisfy the requirements of section 455;
       (C) there will be available from State and local sources 
     for expenditure by such agency to carry out such activities 
     an amount that equals or exceeds 25 percent of the total cost 
     (as determined by the Secretary) of carrying out such 
     activities for the year; and

[[Page H9200]]

       (D) such agency has the fiscal and legal authority and 
     capability to administer all aspects of such activities.
       (b) Amount of Grants.--The amount of a grant to a State 
     under subsection (a) for a fiscal year shall equal the lesser 
     of the following:
       (1) The sum of the initial and additional allotments of the 
     State for the year.
       (2) 75 percent of the total cost (as determined by the 
     Secretary) of carrying out the activities described in 
     subsection (a)(2)(B) for the year.

     SEC. 455. USES OF FUNDS.

       (a) In General.--Of the funds provided to a State library 
     administrative agency under section 454(a)(2)(A), the agency 
     shall expend (either directly or through subgrants or 
     cooperative agreements) at least 97 percent for one or more 
     of the following purposes:
       (1) Electronically connecting libraries with integrated 
     career center systems designated or established under section 
     107 and local service providers receiving grants under 
     paragraph (1) or (2) of section 432(a).
       (2) Establishing or enhancing linkages among libraries.
       (3) Assisting libraries in accessing information through 
     electronic networks.
       (4) Encouraging libraries in different Federal, State, and 
     local jurisdictions, and different types of libraries, to 
     establish consortia and share resources.
       (5) Paying costs for libraries to acquire or share computer 
     systems and telecommunications technologies.
       (6) Improving library and information services for 
     individuals who have difficulty using a library or who need 
     special library materials or services, including individuals 
     under the age of 18.
       (b) Administrative Expenses.--In any fiscal year, a State 
     library administrative agency may use not more than 3 percent 
     of the funds provided to the agency under section 
     454(a)(2)(A) for planning, administration, evaluations, and 
     interagency coordination associated with a grant under this 
     subtitle.

     SEC. 456. ANNUAL APPLICATIONS.

       (a) Submission.--A State that desires to receive a grant 
     under this subtitle for a fiscal year shall submit to the 
     Secretary, in such form and manner and before such deadline 
     as the Secretary shall specify in regulations, an application 
     for such year. Such application shall--
       (1) establish goals, and specify priorities, for the State 
     consistent with the purposes of this subtitle;
       (2) describe activities that are consistent with such goals 
     and priorities, the purposes of this subtitle, and the 
     requirements of section 455 that the State library 
     administrative agency will carry out during such year using 
     such grant;
       (3) describe the procedures that such agency will use to 
     carry out such activities;
       (4) describe the methodology that such agency will use to 
     evaluate the success of such activities in achieving such 
     goals and meeting such priorities;
       (5) describe procedures that such agency will use to 
     involve libraries and library users throughout the State in 
     policy decisions regarding implementation of this subtitle; 
     and
       (6) provide assurances satisfactory to the Secretary that 
     such agency will make such reports, in such form and 
     containing such information, as the Secretary may reasonably 
     require to carry out this subtitle and to determine the 
     extent to which funds provided under this subtitle have been 
     effective in carrying out its purposes.
       (b) Approval.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall approve each 
     application submitted under subsection (a) that satisfies the 
     requirements of the subsection.
       (2) Rights of states upon disapproval.--If the Secretary 
     determines that an application submitted by a State under 
     subsection (a) does not satisfy the requirements of such 
     subsection, the Secretary shall--
       (A) immediately notify the State of such determination and 
     the reasons for such determination; and
       (B) offer the State an opportunity to revise its 
     application to correct any deficiencies.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title IV?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title V.
  The text of title V is as follows:
           TITLE V--AMENDMENTS TO REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973
       Subtitle A--Vocational Rehabilitation Consolidation Grant

                      CHAPTER 1--TRANSITION PERIOD

     SEC. 501. TRANSITION.

       With respect to the amendment made by section 511(a)(4) to 
     title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Secretary of 
     Education, acting through the Commissioner of the 
     Rehabilitation Services Administration, shall administer the 
     amendment in accordance with the following:
       (1) During fiscal year 1996, the Secretary shall develop 
     administrative policies for implementing the amendment.
       (2) During the fiscal years 1997 and 1998, the Secretary 
     shall begin implementing the amendment in accordance with 
     paragraph (4).
       (3) The Secretary shall ensure that, by the first day of 
     fiscal year 1999, the amendment is fully implemented.
       (4) For purposes of paragraph (2), the Secretary shall 
     ensure that, before the first day of fiscal year 1999, the 
     following requirements, administered as conditions on the 
     receipt of grants under such title, have been met:
       (A) The States have complied with section 103(b)(4) of such 
     title (as amended by section 511) regarding the participation 
     of certain providers.
       (B) The States have established policies and made 
     arrangements for the operation of the system of career grants 
     described in section 103(c) of such title, including with 
     respect to the reimbursement of providers.
       (C) The States have established policies and made 
     arrangements under section 103(b)(12) of such title regarding 
     the training of the management and staff of integrated career 
     center systems with respect to individuals with disabilities.
       (D) The States have established policies and made 
     arrangements under section 104 of such title regarding the 
     establishment of such centers, including providing for the 
     significant participation of community-based providers in the 
     program carried out by the State pursuant to such title.
       (E) Such other requirements under the amendment as the 
     Secretary determines to be appropriate.
       (5)(A) Notwithstanding the amendment, during the fiscal 
     years 1996 through 1998, the provisions of title I of the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973 that were in effect on the day 
     before the date of the enactment of this Act continue to be 
     in effect, subject to paragraphs (1) through (4). In 
     implementing the amendment, the Secretary shall seek to avoid 
     unnecessarily disrupting the provision of services under such 
     title to individuals who, as of the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, were receiving services pursuant to an 
     individualized plan under such title.
       (B) On and after the first day of fiscal year 1999, the 
     provisions referred to in the first sentence of subparagraph 
     (A) do not have any legal effect.

      CHAPTER 2--REVISION OF TITLE I OF REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973

     SEC. 511. REVISION OF TITLE I.

       (a) In General.--Effective October 1, 1995, the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 701 et seq.) is 
     amended--
       (1) by transferring section 112 from the current placement 
     of the section;
       (2) by redesignating such section as section 510;
       (3) by adding such section at the end of title V; and
       (4) by amending title I to read as follows:
             ``TITLE I--VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION SERVICES

     ``SEC. 100. PURPOSE.

       ``The purpose of this title is to assist States in making 
     available to individuals with disabilities a program of 
     employment, training, and rehabilitation services that is 
     consistent with their strengths, resources, priorities, 
     concerns, abilities, and capabilities; that maximizes 
     individuals' control over their vocational and career 
     choices; and that is in accordance with the goal of assuring 
     equality of opportunity, full participation, independent 
     living, and economic self-sufficiency for such individuals.

     ``SEC. 101. FORMULA GRANTS.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Formula grants.--In the case of each State that 
     submits to the Secretary a workforce development and literacy 
     plan for fiscal year 1999 or any subsequent fiscal year that 
     meets the requirement of section 104 of the Consolidated and 
     Reformed Education, Employment, and Rehabilitation Systems 
     Act, the Secretary shall make a grant for the year to the 
     State as the Federal share of carrying out the purposes 
     specified in this title. The grant shall consist of the 
     allotment determined for the State under section 107.
       ``(2) Conditions for grant.--A State may receive a grant 
     under paragraph (1) for a fiscal year only if the State meets 
     the conditions described in this title for the State for the 
     fiscal year.
       ``(b) Administrator of Federal Program.--The Secretary 
     shall carry out this title acting through the Commissioner of 
     the Rehabilitation Services Administration, except as 
     indicated otherwise.
       ``(c) Rule of Construction.--The purpose specified in 
     section 100 shall be carried out only in accordance with the 
     other provisions of this title.
       ``(d) Funding.--
       ``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out this title, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of the 
     fiscal years 1999 through 2002, except that the amount to be 
     appropriated for a fiscal year shall not be less than the 
     amount of the appropriation under this subsection for the 
     immediately preceding fiscal year, plus the amount of the 
     Consumer Price Index addition determined under paragraph (2) 
     for the immediately preceding fiscal year.
       ``(2) Adjustments pursuant to consumer price index.--
       ``(A) Not later than November 15 of each fiscal year, the 
     Secretary of Labor shall publish in the Federal Register the 
     percentage change in the Consumer Price Index published for 
     October of the preceding fiscal year and October of the 
     fiscal year in which such publication is made.
       ``(B) If in any fiscal year the percentage change published 
     under subparagraph (A) indicates an increase in the Consumer 
     Price Index, then the amount to be appropriated under 
     paragraph (1) for the subsequent fiscal 

[[Page H9201]]
     year shall be at least the amount appropriated for the fiscal year in 
     which the publication is made under subparagraph (A) 
     increased by such percentage change.
       ``(C) If in any fiscal year the percentage change published 
     under subparagraph (A) does not indicate an increase in the 
     Consumer Price Index, then the amount to be appropriated 
     under paragraph (1) for the subsequent fiscal year shall be 
     at least the amount appropriated for the fiscal year in which 
     the publication is made under subparagraph (A).
       ``(D) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `Consumer 
     Price Index' means the Consumer Price Index for All Urban 
     Consumers, published monthly by the Bureau of Labor 
     Statistics.
       ``(3) Automatic extension of authorization.--
       ``(A) Unless, in the regular session that ends prior to the 
     beginning of the last fiscal year for which an authorization 
     of appropriations is provided in paragraph (1), legislation 
     has been enacted that has the effect of extending such 
     authorization, such authorization is automatically extended 
     for one additional year.
       ``(B) The amount authorized to be appropriated for the 
     additional fiscal year described in subparagraph (A) shall be 
     an amount equal to the amount appropriated for such program 
     for fiscal year 2002, plus the amount of the Consumer Price 
     Index addition determined under paragraph (2) for the 
     immediately preceding fiscal year.
       ``(C) In any case where the Commissioner is required under 
     an applicable statute to carry out certain acts or make 
     certain determinations that are necessary for the 
     continuation of the program authorized by this title, and 
     such acts or determinations are required during the last 
     fiscal year for which an authorization of appropriations is 
     provided in paragraph (1), such acts and determinations shall 
     be required during any fiscal year for which subparagraph (A) 
     is in operation.

     ``SEC. 102. ALLOCATION WITHIN STATE OF ADMINISTRATIVE 
                   RESPONSIBILITIES.

       ``(a) In General.--For purposes of section 101(a), a State 
     will--
       ``(1) subject to subsection (b), reserve not more than 20 
     percent of the grant under such section for the fiscal year 
     involved for carrying out the responsibilities of a State 
     administrative agent under section 103; and
       ``(2) reserve not less than 80 percent of the grant for 
     carrying out the responsibilities under section 104 of local 
     workforce development boards and integrated career center 
     systems with respect to workforce development areas.
       ``(b) Additional State Responsibilities.--Amounts reserved 
     by a State under subsection (a)(1) may be expended by the 
     State administrative agent to carry out responsibilities that 
     otherwise would be carried out under section 104 by local 
     workforce development boards or integrated career center 
     systems, if the State determines that such expenditures are 
     justified to make available goods and services that could not 
     otherwise be obtained within a local workforce development 
     area, to provide services to individuals unable to utilize 
     the integrated career center systems, or to otherwise ensure 
     the efficient and equitable provision in the State of 
     services under this title, including the provision of 
     services for individuals in rural areas.
       ``(c) Certain Definitions.--For purposes of this Act, the 
     terms `State administrative agent', `local workforce 
     development area', `local workforce development board', and 
     `integrated career center' have the meanings given such terms 
     in sections 105 through 108, respectively, of the 
     Consolidated and Reformed Education, Employment, and 
     Rehabilitation Systems Act.

     ``SEC. 103. RESPONSIBILITIES OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT.

       ``(a) State Administrative Agent.--In carrying out the 
     requirements of the Consolidated and Reformed Education, 
     Employment, and Rehabilitation Systems Act, a Governor may 
     designate--
       ``(1) one State administrative agent to be responsible for 
     carrying out this title for individuals who are blind; and
       ``(2) a different State administrative agent to carry out 
     the remaining responsibilities in this title.
       ``(b) Responsibilities.--For purposes of section 101(a) and 
     the operation in a State of the program under this title:
       ``(1) This subsection, and the subsequent provisions of 
     this section, will be carried out by State administrative 
     agents designated by the Governor in accordance with 
     subsection (a), through the collaborative process established 
     under section 103 of the Consolidated and Reformed Education, 
     Employment, and Rehabilitation Systems Act.
       ``(2)(A) The State will provide to the public an 
     explanation of the methods by which the State will provide 
     vocational rehabilitation services (as defined in section 
     104(b))--
       ``(i) to all eligible individuals (as defined in section 
     105(d)); and
       ``(ii) within all local workforce delivery areas in the 
     State.
       ``(B) In the event that such services cannot be provided to 
     all eligible individuals who apply for the services, the 
     State will show and provide the justification for the order 
     to be followed in selecting individuals to whom the services 
     will be provided.
       ``(C) The order of selection under subparagraph (B) will be 
     determined on the basis of serving first those individuals 
     with the most severe disabilities, in accordance with 
     criteria established by the State.
       ``(3) The State will establish guidelines providing that, 
     in the case of an individual to whom the State will provide a 
     service (in accordance with the order of selection under 
     paragraph (2) and the assessment of needs under section 
     104(c)(1)), the individual will have the option of receiving 
     the service from a provider designated by the center or from 
     a provider selected by the individual pursuant to career 
     grants under subsection (c).
       ``(4) Pursuant to section 109 of the Consolidated and 
     Reformed Education, Employment, and Rehabilitation Systems 
     Act, the State will make significant efforts to encourage the 
     participation in the State program of community-based private 
     providers, with special consideration given to providers who 
     have received funds under this Act regarding projects with 
     industry or supported employment services, or under the Act 
     commonly known as the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46 
     et seq.) for employment and training services.
       ``(5) The State will establish provisions to govern 
     determinations under section 105 (relating to the eligibility 
     of individuals).
       ``(6) The State will establish standards to govern the 
     conduct under section 104(c)(1) of assessments of need, 
     including the development of a methodology that will be 
     applied in a reasonably uniform manner to all individuals for 
     whom such assessments are conducted, and that (subject to the 
     order of selection under paragraph (2)) will be designed to 
     prevent substantial disparities, among individuals with 
     comparable circumstances, in the monetary value of the 
     services to be provided pursuant to the assessments.
       ``(7)(A) The State will establish procedures through which 
     an individual may request and obtain an impartial review, 
     utilizing an impartial hearing officer, of whether standards 
     for determinations of eligibility for services, assessments 
     of vocational rehabilitation needs, and development of 
     individualized rehabilitation and employment plans under this 
     title were correctly applied to the individual by the 
     integrated career center system involved.
       ``(B) The State will designate a number of days (applied 
     uniformly to all individuals) within which review under 
     subparagraph (A) will be conducted once a request for such 
     review is made by an individual, subject to subparagraph (C).
       ``(C)(i) The State will provide that there may be an 
     informal hearing, mediation, or alternatives to such review, 
     if agreed upon by the individual and the integrated career 
     center system involved.
       ``(ii) The State will provide that if, in a process 
     utilized under clause (i) by an individual, there is a not a 
     final disposition of the matter involved, review under 
     subparagraph (A) will remain available to the individual.
       ``(8) The State will ensure that vocational rehabilitation 
     services under this title, and related core services, are 
     provided by personnel who are qualified to provide the 
     services involved. For purposes of the preceding sentence, 
     the term `core services' has the meaning indicated for such 
     term under title I of the Consolidated and Reformed 
     Education, Employment, and Rehabilitation Systems Act.
       ``(9) The State will establish plans, policies, and 
     procedures to be followed in carrying out the program under 
     this title in the State (including entering into a formal 
     interagency cooperative agreement with education officials 
     responsible for the provision of a free appropriate public 
     education to students who are individuals with disabilities). 
     The State will ensure that such plans, policies, and 
     procedures are designed in accordance with the following:
       ``(A)(i) To facilitate the development and accomplishment 
     of the goals and objectives described in clause (ii) 
     (including the specification of plans for coordination with 
     the educational agencies in the provision of transition 
     services), to the extent that the goals and objectives are 
     included in an individualized education program of a student.
       ``(ii) The goals and objectives referred to in clause (i) 
     are long-term rehabilitation goals; intermediate 
     rehabilitation objectives; and goals and objectives related 
     to enabling a student to live independently before the 
     student leaves a school setting.
       ``(B) To facilitate the transition from the provision of a 
     free appropriate public education under the responsibility of 
     an educational agency to the provision of vocational 
     rehabilitation services under this title, including the 
     specification of plans for coordination with educational 
     agencies in the provision of transition services to an 
     individual.
       ``(C) To provide for--
       ``(i) provisions for determining State lead agencies and 
     qualified personnel responsible for transition services;
       ``(ii) procedures for outreach to and identification of 
     youth in need of such services; and
       ``(iii) a timeframe for evaluation and follow-up of youth 
     who have received such services.
       ``(10) The State will provide for coordination and working 
     relationships with the Statewide Independent Living Council 
     established under section 705 and independent living centers 
     within the State.
       ``(11) The State will provide for interagency cooperation 
     with, and the utilization of the services and facilities of, 
     the State agencies administering the State's public 
     assistance programs, and other programs for individuals with 
     disabilities.

[[Page H9202]]

       ``(12) With respect to the integrated career center system 
     operated pursuant to section 104, the State will provide for 
     the appropriate training of the management and staff of the 
     centers regarding the effective provision of services to 
     individuals with disabilities.
       ``(13) The State will provide technical assistance to local 
     boards, integrated career center systems, and providers 
     relating to the effective provision of vocational 
     rehabilitation services under this title, including the 
     effective development of individualized rehabilitation and 
     employment plans, and will ensure that such technical 
     assistance is provided through appropriate means.
       ``(c) Availability of Career Grants System Regarding 
     Services.--For purposes of section 101(a) and the operation 
     in a State of the program under this title:
       ``(1) The State will provide for the establishment of a 
     system to carry out this subsection.
       ``(2) In the case of an eligible individual who (in 
     accordance with the order of selection under subsection 
     (b)(2) and the assessment of needs under section 
     105(b)(2)(A)) will receive vocational rehabilitation services 
     under this title, the integrated career center involved will, 
     upon request of the individual, provide to the individual 
     career grants in accordance with this subsection.
       ``(3) Career grants under this subsection will enable such 
     individual to obtain the vocational rehabilitation services 
     involved from providers selected by the individual from among 
     a list of providers approved by the State for such purpose in 
     accordance with section 109 of the Consolidated and Reformed 
     Education, Employment, and Rehabilitation Systems Act.
       ``(4) The monetary value of a career grant provided to the 
     individual for a particular type of service will be 
     calculated at a fair market value.
       ``(5) To the extent practicable, the list of providers 
     under paragraph (3) will provide for the availability within 
     each local workforce development area of a broad range of 
     services.
       ``(6) The aggregate value of the career grants available to 
     the individual will be established in proportion to the 
     degree of the individual's need for rehabilitation (as 
     determined under section 104(c)(1)). Such value regarding the 
     individuals may be adjusted to address emerging needs that 
     arise during the course of the individual's rehabilitation 
     and employment program.
       ``(d) State Options.--With respect to compliance with this 
     section, a State may, in the discretion of the State, expend 
     a grant under section 101 for the following:
       ``(1) To disseminate findings from research regarding 
     vocational rehabilitation services, after consideration of 
     requests from local workforce development boards and 
     integrated career center systems regarding the types of 
     information needed by such boards and centers.
       ``(2) To conduct demonstration projects regarding 
     improvements with respect to vocational rehabilitation 
     services, subject to providing the results of such projects 
     to the Commissioner and as appropriate disseminating the 
     results within the State.

     ``SEC. 104. RESPONSIBILITIES FOR LOCAL BOARDS AND SERVICE 
                   CENTERS.

       ``(a) Provision of Vocational Rehabilitation Services.--For 
     purposes of section 101(a) and the operation in a State of 
     the program under this title:
       ``(1) This section will be carried out by the integrated 
     career center system in the State, with each such center 
     acting under the guidance of the local workforce development 
     board for the local workforce area within which the 
     integrated career center system operates. Such centers will 
     provide services under this section directly or through 
     contract.
       ``(2) In accordance with the order of selection under 
     section 103(b)(2), an integrated career center system will, 
     in expending amounts provided to the center from a grant 
     under section 101, carry out the following:
       ``(A) Make determinations under section 105 of the 
     eligibility of individuals for vocational rehabilitation 
     services (as defined in subsection (b)).
       ``(B) Provide for vocational rehabilitation services for 
     eligible individuals.
       ``(C) In the case of individuals with severe disabilities, 
     conduct outreach and intake activities for such individuals 
     who are not able to directly access the integrated career 
     center system because of the nature of their disabilities.
       ``(3) An integrated career center system will, in expending 
     amounts provided to the center from a grant under section 
     101, make vocational rehabilitation services available at a 
     variety of locations and, as appropriate for particular 
     populations, in a variety of environments.
       ``(b) Definition.--For purposes of this title, the term 
     `vocational rehabilitation services' means such goods or 
     services for eligible individuals as are--
       ``(1) necessary to render the individuals employable and 
     achieve an employment outcome; and
       ``(2) provided in response to needs that arise, to a 
     significant extent, from the disability involved and do not 
     duplicate, to any significant extent, the core services 
     available under title I of the Consolidated and Reformed 
     Education, Employment, and Rehabilitation Systems Act.
       ``(c) Certain Services.--For purposes of section 101(a), 
     the vocational rehabilitation services available through 
     integrated career center systems will include the following:
       ``(1) An assessment of the needs of eligible individuals 
     for such services.
       ``(2) Development, in accordance with section 105(b)(2), of 
     an individualized rehabilitation and employment plan for the 
     purpose of identifying employment goals, appropriate 
     intermediate rehabilitation objectives, and an appropriate 
     combination of goods and services for the individual to 
     achieve the employment goals.
       ``(3) Counseling, guidance, and work-related placement 
     services for individuals with disabilities, including job 
     search assistance, placement assistance, job retention 
     services, personal assistance services, and follow-up, 
     follow-along, and specific postemployment services necessary 
     to assist such individuals to maintain, regain, or advance in 
     employment.
       ``(4) Vocational and other training services for 
     individuals with disabilities, including personal and 
     vocational adjustment, books, or other training materials, 
     and such services to the families of such individuals as are 
     necessary to the adjustment or rehabilitation of such 
     individuals.
       ``(5) Rehabilitation technology services.
       ``(6) Supported employment services.
       ``(7) Physical and mental restoration services.
       ``(8) Interpreter services for individuals who are deaf, 
     and reader services for individuals who are blind.
       ``(9) Rehabilitation teaching services and orientation and 
     mobility services for individuals who are blind.
       ``(10) Referral and other services designed to assist 
     individuals with disabilities in securing needed services 
     from other agencies through agreements developed under 
     section 103(b)(10), if such services are not available under 
     this Act.
       ``(11) Transportation in connection with the rendering of 
     any vocational rehabilitation service.
       ``(12) Telecommunications, sensory, and other technological 
     aids and devices.
       ``(13) On-the-job, or other related personal-assistance 
     services, provided while eligible individuals are receiving 
     other vocational rehabilitation services under this title.
       ``(d) Certain Arrangements.--For purposes of section 
     101(a), an integrated career center system will, with respect 
     to the provision of vocational rehabilitation services to 
     individuals with the most severe disabilities, provide for 
     necessary arrangements with community-based providers, 
     including arrangements regarding supported employment 
     services and extended services, periodic reviews of 
     individuals placed in extended employment, and services to 
     promote movement from extended employment to integrated 
     employment.
       ``(e) Optional Provision of Other Services.--For purposes 
     of this title, an integrated career center system may provide 
     such vocational rehabilitation services in addition to the 
     services specified in subsection (c) as the center determines 
     to be appropriate.
       ``(f) Allocation for Core Services.--For purposes of 
     section 101(a):
       ``(1) With respect to a fiscal year, a local workforce 
     development board receiving amounts from a grant under 
     section 101 will reserve an amount for the provision of core 
     services under title I of the Consolidated and Reformed 
     Education, Employment, and Rehabilitation Systems Act.
       ``(2) The amount so reserved will be based on the number of 
     eligible individuals with disabilities in the local workforce 
     development area and the costs of training employees of the 
     integrated career center system to provide high-quality 
     services to individuals with disabilities.
       ``(g) Performance Payments Regarding Career Grants.--For 
     purposes of section 101(a):
       ``(1) The local workforce development board involved will 
     ensure that, in providing for the payment of services 
     provided pursuant to career grants, a portion of the total 
     payment is withheld from the provider until the delivery of 
     the services involved is completed in reasonable accordance 
     with the outcome designated for the service pursuant to a 
     prior understanding with the provider.
       ``(2) In the case of education, training, and placement 
     services that are designed to lead to an employment outcome, 
     a portion of the total payment will be withheld from the 
     provider until--
       ``(A) the participant has successfully completed the 
     training; and
       ``(B) the participant has been employed, and has retained 
     employment for a period of not less than 90 days.
       ``(h) Payor of Last Resort Regarding Medical Services and 
     Educational Assistance.--For purposes of section 101(a), a 
     State will not expend a grant under section 101 to pay for 
     training services in institutions of higher education, or to 
     pay for medical services, unless significant efforts have 
     been made to secure payments, in whole or in part, from other 
     sources, except that such efforts are not required if making 
     the efforts would delay the provision of such services to any 
     eligible individual who is at extreme medical risk, or if 
     making the efforts would result in the loss of a job 
     placement that (but for the efforts) would be immediately 
     available to an eligible individual.

     ``SEC. 105. ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL.

       ``(a) In General.--For purposes of section 101:

[[Page H9203]]

       ``(1) An individual will not receive vocational 
     rehabilitation services under this title unless the 
     individual--
       ``(A) is an individual with a disability under section 
     7(8)(A); and
       ``(B) requires vocational rehabilitation services to 
     prepare for, enter, engage in, or retain gainful employment.
       ``(2) If the individual has a disability or is blind as 
     determined pursuant to title II or title XVI of the Social 
     Security Act, the individual will be considered to have--
       ``(A) a physical or mental impairment which for such 
     individual constitutes or results in a substantial impediment 
     to employment under section 7(8)(A)(i); and
       ``(B) a severe physical or mental impairment which 
     seriously limits one or more functional capacities in terms 
     of an employment outcome under section 7(15)(A)(i).
       ``(3) It will be presumed that an individual can benefit in 
     terms of an employment outcome from vocational rehabilitation 
     services for purposes of section 7(8)(A)(ii), unless the 
     integrated career center system involved can demonstrate by 
     clear and convincing evidence that such individual is 
     incapable of benefiting from vocational rehabilitation 
     services in terms of an employment outcome.
       ``(b) Process.--For purposes of section 101(a), a State 
     will ensure that, subject to the order of selection under 
     section 102(b)(2), the following applies to an individual:
       ``(1) Once the individual makes a request in person for a 
     determination of eligibility:
       ``(A) A qualified rehabilitation adviser will be made 
     available to the individual regarding the process of 
     obtaining services under this title.
       ``(B) An initial interview will be conducted, followed by 
     an initial assessment.
       ``(C) A final determination will be made not later than 30 
     days after the request (subject to the cooperation of the 
     individual in the process of determination).
       ``(D) The determination of eligibility will be based on the 
     review of existing data described in clause (i) of section 
     7(22)(A), and, to the extent necessary, the preliminary 
     assessment described in clause (ii) of such section.
       ``(E) If it is determined that the individual is not an 
     eligible individual, the individual will be provided a 
     written statement explaining the following:
       ``(i) The basis of the determination.
       ``(ii) The availability of impartial review under section 
     103(b)(7).
       ``(iii) The availability of services under the client 
     assistance program under section 510.
       ``(2)(A) If it is determined that the individual is an 
     eligible individual--
       ``(i) the needs of the individual for vocational 
     rehabilitation services will be assessed; and
       ``(ii) subject to subparagraph (D), an individualized 
     rehabilitation and employment plan will be developed for the 
     individual regarding the provision of services pursuant to 
     clause (i).
       ``(B) The plan under subparagraph (A) will be developed and 
     mutually agreed upon by the individual and an appropriate 
     staff member of the integrated career center system involved.
       ``(C) A plan under subparagraph (A) is individualized if 
     the plan is consistent with the unique strengths, resources, 
     priorities, concerns, abilities, and capabilities of the 
     individual for whom the plan is developed.
       ``(D) A plan under subparagraph (A) is not required for an 
     individual if the individual signs a waiver stating that such 
     a plan is not necessary for the individual.
       ``(c) Rule of Construction.--This title may not be 
     construed as establishing an entitlement in any individual.
       ``(d) Definition.--For purposes of this title, the term 
     `eligible individual' means an individual described in 
     subsection (a)(1).

     ``SEC. 106. STATE REHABILITATION ADVISORY COUNCIL.

       ``(a) In General.--For purposes of section 101(a):
       ``(1) A State will establish a State Rehabilitation 
     Advisory Council (referred to in this section as the 
     `Council') in accordance with this section.
       ``(2) The Council will be composed of the following:
       ``(A) Representatives of organizations within the State 
     providing services to individuals with disabilities and their 
     families, including representatives of the client assistance 
     program under section 510.
       ``(B) Representatives of business, industry, and labor.
       ``(C) Representatives of disability advocacy groups 
     representing a cross section of--
       ``(i) individuals with physical, cognitive, sensory, and 
     mental disabilities; and
       ``(ii) parents, family members, guardians, advocates, or 
     authorized representatives, of individuals with disabilities 
     who have difficulty in representing themselves or are unable 
     due to their disabilities to represent themselves.
       ``(3) The State administrative agent will be an ex officio 
     member of the Council.
       ``(4) Members of the Council will be appointed by the 
     Governor or another entity that has appointment authority 
     under State law.
       ``(5) A majority of Council members will be persons who 
     are--
       ``(A) individuals with disabilities described in section 
     7(8)(B); and
       ``(B) not employed by the designated State administrative 
     agent.
       ``(6)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the 
     Council will select a chairperson from among the membership 
     of the Council.
       ``(B) In States in which the Governor does not have veto 
     power pursuant to State law, the Governor will designate a 
     member of the Council to serve as the chairperson of the 
     Council or will require the Council to so designate such a 
     member.
       ``(7) Each member of the Council will serve for a term 
     determined by the Governor or another entity that has 
     appointment authority under State law.
       ``(8) Any vacancy occurring in the membership of the 
     Council will be filled in the same manner as the original 
     appointment. The vacancy will not affect the power of the 
     remaining members to execute the duties of the Council.
       ``(b) Functions of Council.--For purposes of section 
     101(a), the Council will carry out the following:
       ``(1) Advise the collaborative process under section 103 of 
     the Consolidated and Reformed Education, Employment, and 
     Rehabilitation Systems Act, and the State administrative 
     agent, in the preparation of the State workforce development 
     and literacy plan and other plans, reports, needs 
     assessments, and evaluations required by this title.
       ``(2) To the extent feasible, conduct a review and analysis 
     of the effectiveness of, and consumer satisfaction with, the 
     delivery of core services and vocational rehabilitation 
     services to individuals with disabilities within the State.
       ``(3) Prepare and submit an annual report to the 
     collaborative process or appropriate State administrative 
     agent and the Commissioner on the status of vocational 
     rehabilitation programs operated within the State, and make 
     the report available to the public.
       ``(4) Coordinate with other councils within the State 
     established to address the needs of individuals with 
     disabilities.
       ``(5) Perform such other functions, consistent with the 
     purpose of this title, as the State Rehabilitation Advisory 
     Council determines to be appropriate, that are comparable to 
     the other functions performed by the Council.
       ``(c) Resources.--
       ``(1) Plan.--For purposes of section 101(a), the Council 
     will prepare, in conjunction with the State administrative 
     agent, a plan for the provision of such resources, including 
     such staff and other personnel, as may be necessary to carry 
     out the functions of the Council under this section. The 
     resource plan shall, to the maximum extent possible, rely on 
     the use of resources in existence during the period of 
     implementation of the plan.
       ``(2) Resolution of disagreements.--For purposes of section 
     101(a), to the extent that there is a disagreement between 
     the Council and the State administrative agent in regard to 
     the resources necessary to carry out the functions of the 
     Council as set forth in this section, the disagreement will 
     be resolved by the Governor or appointing agency identified 
     in subsection (a)(4).
       ``(3) Supervision and evaluation.--For purposes of section 
     101(a), the Council will, consistent with State law, 
     supervise and evaluate such staff and other personnel as may 
     be necessary to carry out its functions under this section.
       ``(4) Personnel conflict of interest.--For purposes of 
     section 101(a), while assisting the Council in carrying out 
     its duties, staff and other personnel will not be assigned 
     duties by the State administrative agent or any other agency 
     or office of the State, that would create a conflict of 
     interest.
       ``(d) Conflict of Interest.--For purposes of section 
     101(a), no member of the Council will cast a vote on any 
     matter that would provide direct financial benefit to the 
     member or otherwise give the appearance of a conflict of 
     interest under State law.
       ``(e) Meetings.--For purposes of section 101(a), the 
     Council will convene meetings and conduct such forums or 
     hearings as the Council considers appropriate. The meetings, 
     hearings, and forums will be publicly announced. The meetings 
     will be open and accessible to the general public unless 
     there is a valid reason for an executive session.
       ``(f) Compensation and Expenses.--For purposes of section 
     101(a), the Council may use funds appropriated under this 
     title to reimburse members of the Council for reasonable and 
     necessary expenses of attending Council meetings and 
     performing Council duties (including child care and personal 
     assistance services), and to pay compensation to a member of 
     the Council, if such member is not employed or must forfeit 
     wages from other employment, for each day the member is 
     engaged in performing the duties of the Council.
       ``(g) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section 
     prohibits a State from establishing and providing funds to a 
     separate council to carry out functions described in 
     subsection (b) with respect to vocational rehabilitation 
     services for individuals who are blind.

     ``SEC. 107. AMOUNT OF ALLOTMENT.

       ``(a)(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (d), for 
     each fiscal year beginning before October 1, 1978, each State 
     shall be entitled to an allotment of an amount bearing the 
     same ratio to the amount authorized to be appropriated under 
     section 101(d) for allotment under this section as the 
     product of (A) the population of the State, and (B) the 
     square of its allotment percentage, bears to the sum of the 
     corresponding products for all the States.
       ``(2)(A) For each fiscal year beginning on or after October 
     1, 1978, each State shall be entitled to an allotment in an 
     amount equal to 

[[Page H9204]]
     the amount such State received under paragraph (1) for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1978, and an additional amount 
     determined pursuant to subparagraph (B) of this paragraph.
       ``(B) For each fiscal year beginning on or after October 1, 
     1978, each State shall be entitled to an allotment, from any 
     amount authorized to be appropriated for such fiscal year 
     under section 101(d) for allotment under this section in 
     excess of the amount appropriated under such section for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 1978, in an amount equal to 
     the sum of--
       ``(i) an amount bearing the same ratio to 50 percent of 
     such excess amount as the product of the population of the 
     State and the square of its allotment percentage bears to the 
     sum of the corresponding products for all the States; and
       ``(ii) an amount bearing the same ratio to 50 percent of 
     such excess amount as the product of the population of the 
     State and its allotment percentage bears to the sum of the 
     corresponding products for all the States.
       ``(3) The sum of the payment to any State (other than Guam, 
     American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana 
     Islands) under this subsection for any fiscal year which is 
     less than one-third of 1 percent of the amount appropriated 
     under section 101(d), or $3,000,000, whichever is greater, 
     shall be increased to that amount, the total of the increases 
     thereby required being derived by proportionately reducing 
     the allotment to each of the remaining such States under this 
     subsection, but with such adjustments as may be necessary to 
     prevent the sum of the allotments made under this subsection 
     to any such remaining State from being thereby reduced to 
     less than that amount.
       ``(4) For each fiscal year beginning on or after October 1, 
     1984, for which any amount is appropriated pursuant to 
     section 101(d), each State shall receive an allocation (from 
     such appropriated amount) in addition to the allotment to 
     which such State is entitled under paragraphs (2) and (3) of 
     this subsection. Such additional allocation shall be an 
     amount which bears the same ratio to the amount so 
     appropriated as that State's allotment under paragraphs (2) 
     and (3) of this subsection bears to the sum of such 
     allotments of all the States.
       ``(b)(1) If the payment to a State pursuant to this section 
     for a fiscal year is less than the total payments such State 
     received under section 2 of the Rehabilitation Act for the 
     fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, such State shall be 
     entitled to an additional payment (subject to the same terms 
     and conditions applicable to other payments under this title) 
     equal to the difference between the payment under this 
     section and the amount so received by it.
       ``(2) If a State receives as its Federal share pursuant to 
     this section for any fiscal year less than the applicable 
     Federal share of the expenditure of such State for fiscal 
     year 1972 for vocational rehabilitation services under the 
     plan for such State approved under section 101 as in effect 
     for such year (including any amount expended by such State 
     for the administration of the State plan but excluding any 
     amount expended by such State from non-Federal sources for 
     construction under such plan), such State shall be entitled 
     to an additional payment for such fiscal year, subject to the 
     same terms and conditions applicable to other payments under 
     this title, equal to the difference between such the payment 
     pursuant to this section and an amount equal to the 
     applicable Federal share of such expenditure for vocational 
     rehabilitation services.
       ``(3) Any payment attributable to the additional payment to 
     a State under this subsection shall be made only from 
     appropriations specifically made to carry out this 
     subsection, and such additional appropriations are hereby 
     authorized.

     ``SEC. 108. STATE OPTION FOR WAIVERS REGARDING ALTERNATIVE 
                   DELIVERY SYSTEMS.

       ``(a) In General.--In the case of the requirements 
     specified in subsection (b), the Secretary shall provide to a 
     State a waiver of such requirements as the State elects, if 
     (subject to the other provisions of this section) the 
     following conditions are met:
       ``(1) The Governor, through the collaborative process under 
     section 103 of the Consolidated and Reformed Education, 
     Employment, and Rehabilitation Systems Act, develops a 
     proposed plan for alternative approaches (to be implemented 
     by the State in lieu of the requirements involved).
       ``(2) The proposal is approved by each local workforce 
     development board in whose local workforce development area 
     the proposal (or any component of the proposal) is to be 
     effective.
       ``(3) The local workforce development boards involved, and 
     the Governor, determine that the following conditions have 
     been met:
       ``(A) The proposal will better fulfill the purposes of this 
     title than would compliance with the requirements involved.
       ``(B) In the development of the alternative approaches, the 
     public was afforded a reasonable opportunity to comment on 
     the proposed alternative approaches.
       ``(4) The Governor submits to the Secretary the following 
     documents:
       ``(A) A notification that the State is electing to receive 
     a waiver under this section.
       ``(B) A copy of the plan involved.
       ``(C) Such documents as the Secretary may require for 
     purposes of verifying that the conditions established in 
     paragraphs (1) through (3) have been met.
       ``(b) Certain Requirements Regarding State Administrative 
     Structure for Delivery of Services.--The requirements 
     referred to in subsection (a) are as follows:
       ``(1) The allocation under section 102 of amounts between 
     State administrative agents and local workforce development 
     boards.
       ``(2) The allocation under sections 103 and 104 of 
     responsibilities between State administrative agents and 
     local workforce development boards (including the use of 
     integrated career center systems to provide vocational 
     rehabilitation services).
       ``(3) The specification under section 103(a) of the State 
     officials who are to administer the requirements of section 
     103.
       ``(c) Applicability of Waiver; Review and Revision of 
     Plan.--
       ``(1) Applicability.--A waiver under subsection (a) is 
     effective for a fiscal year only if the documents under 
     paragraph (4) of such subsection are submitted to the 
     Secretary not later than 60 days before the beginning of the 
     fiscal year.
       ``(2) Review of plan.--A waiver under subsection (a) is 
     effective for such fiscal years as the State involved elects, 
     except that, not less than once during each period of three 
     fiscal years, the plan under the waiver is required (as a 
     condition of the waiver remaining in effect) to be reviewed, 
     and approved, by the Governor (through the collaborative 
     process referred to in such subsection) and by the local 
     workforce development boards involved.
       ``(3) Revision of plan.--The plan under a waiver under 
     subsection (a) may be revised. Such subsection applies to 
     such a revision to the same extent and in the same manner as 
     the subsection applies to the original plan.
       ``(d) Performance Accountability System.--A waiver under 
     subsection (a) for a State does not, with respect to carrying 
     out the program under this title in the State, affect the 
     applicability to the State of section 110 of the Consolidated 
     and Reformed Education, Employment, and Rehabilitation 
     Systems Act.''.
       (b) Certain Funding Provision.--Effective October 1, 1995, 
     the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 701 et seq.) is 
     amended by inserting after section 3 the following section:


                        ``availability of funds

       ``Sec. 3A. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funding to carry out titles II through VII for any fiscal 
     year is available only to such extent and in such amounts as 
     may be provided in advance in appropriations Acts.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--Effective October 1, 1995, the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 701 et seq.) is amended 
     in the table of contents in the first section--
       (1) by inserting after the item relating to section 3 the 
     following item:

``Sec. 3A. Availability of funds.'';
       (2) by striking the items relating to sections 100 through 
     109, to sections 110 through 112, to sections 120 through 
     124, to section 130, and to sections 140 and 141;
       (3) by striking the items relating to the title designation 
     and heading for title I, and to the part designations and 
     headings for parts A, B, C, D, and E of title I;
       (4) by inserting after the item relating to section 21 the 
     following items:

             ``TITLE I--VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION SERVICES

``Sec. 100. Purpose.
``Sec. 101. Formula grants.
``Sec. 102. Allocation within State of administrative responsibilities.
``Sec. 103. Responsibilities of State administrative agent.
``Sec. 104. Responsibilities for local boards and service centers.
``Sec. 105. Eligible individual.
``Sec. 106. State Rehabilitation Advisory Council.
``Sec. 107. Amount of allotment.
``Sec. 108. State option for waivers regarding alternative delivery 
              systems.'';

     and
       (5) by inserting after the item relating to section 509 the 
     following item:

``Sec. 510. Client assistance program.''.
       Subtitle B--Other Amendments to Rehabilitation Act of 1973

     SEC. 521. TRAINING AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--Effective October 1, 1995, the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 701 et seq.) is 
     amended--
       (1) in title III--
       (A) by striking section 303;
       (B) by striking section 304;
       (C) in section 311--
       (i) by striking subsections (c) and (f); and
       (ii) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as 
     subsections (c) and (d), respectively;
       (D) by striking section 312; and
       (E) by striking section 316;
       (2)(A) by transferring subsection (a) of section 802 from 
     the current placement of the subsection;
       (B) by redesignating such subsection as subsection (e); and
       (C) by inserting such subsection at the end of section 311 
     (as amended by paragraph (1)(C) of this subsection);
       (3)(A) by transferring subsection (g) of section 802 from 
     the current placement of the subsection; and
       (B) by redesignating such subsection as subsection (f); and
       (C) by inserting such subsection at the end of section 311 
     (as amended by paragraph (2)(C) of this subsection);

[[Page H9205]]

       (4)(A) by transferring subsection (c) of section 803 from 
     the current placement of the subsection;
       (B) by redesignating such subsection as subsection (g); and
       (C) by inserting such subsection at the end of section 311 
     (as amended by paragraph (3)(C) of this subsection);
       (5)(A) by transferring subsection (b) of section 803 from 
     the current placement of the subsection;
       (B) by redesignating such subsection as subsection (j); and
       (C) by inserting such subsection at the end of section 302; 
     and
       (6) by striking the remaining provisions of title VIII.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Effective October 1, 1995, the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 701 et seq.) is amended 
     in the table of contents in the first section--
       (1) by striking the items relating to sections 303, 304, 
     312, and 316;
       (2) by striking the items relating to sections 801 through 
     803 of title VIII; and
       (3) by striking the item relating to the title designation 
     and heading for title VIII.

     SEC. 522. EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH 
                   DISABILITIES.

       (a) In General.--Effective October 1, 1995, title VI of the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 795 et seq.) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking part A;
       (2) by striking part C;
       (3) by striking part D; and
       (4) in part B, by striking the part designation and 
     heading.
       (b) Projects With Industry.--Effective October 1, 1998, 
     title VI of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended by 
     subsection (a) of this section, is repealed.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--Effective October 1, 1995, the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 701 et seq.) is amended 
     in the table of contents in the first section by striking the 
     items relating to sections 611 through 617, to sections 631 
     through 638, and to section 641; and by striking the items 
     relating to the part designations and headings for parts A, 
     B, C, and D of title VI. Effective October 1, 1998, such 
     table of contents is amended by striking the items relating 
     to sections 621 through 623; and by striking the item 
     relating to the title designation and heading for title VI.

     SEC. 523. CERTAIN AMOUNTS.

       (a) Amounts Regarding Fiscal Year 1996.--With respect to 
     the aggregate amount that was available for fiscal year 1995 
     as direct spending for carrying out the programs under 
     section 311(c), section 316, and part C of title VI of the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (as such provisions were in effect 
     for such fiscal year), an amount equal to such aggregate 
     amount is hereby made available for fiscal year 1996 as 
     direct spending for carrying out title I of such Act (in 
     addition to the amount of direct spending that otherwise is 
     available for such title I for fiscal year 1996).
       (b) Amounts Regarding Fiscal Year 1999.--With respect to 
     the amount made available in appropriations Act for fiscal 
     year 1998 for carrying out title VI of the Rehabilitation Act 
     of 1973 (as such title was in effect for such fiscal year), 
     an amount equal to such amount is hereby made available for 
     fiscal year 1999 as direct spending for carrying out title I 
     of such Act (in addition to the amount of direct spending 
     that otherwise is available for such title I for fiscal year 
     1999).

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title V?
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, there is an old saying that says, ``If it isn't broke, 
don't fix it.'' Voc rehab certainly is not broken. Voc rehab is one of 
the most important mechanisms we have of assisting individuals with 
disabilities to obtain productive employment, to live independently, 
and to thrive in mainstream society. Whatever we do in this area, we 
should do carefully. Yet what we have before us today disrupts the 
current voc rehab system by limiting State flexibility, diluting 
accountability, and creating uneven access to services.
  Mr. Chairman, I introduced this amendment because the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Gene Green, was late in arriving. The gentleman from Texas, 
Mr. Gene Green, will explain what the amendment does.


              amendment offered by mr. gene green of texas

  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gene Green of Texas: Strike title 
     V of the bill and insert the following:

                   TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 501. EFFECT ON REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, this Act 
     does not have any legal effect on any program under the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity. 
This amendment is offered not only by myself but also the gentleman 
from Arkansas [Mr. Dickey], my good friend and colleague.
  This amendment is an amendment we talked about earlier that would 
strike title V of the CAREERS bill that I talked about on earlier 
amendments. Even in my opening comments I have expressed grave concerns 
about the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 that is included in this bill.
  The Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities held no 
hearings specifically on title V. Now, on Thursday, the majority staff 
released changes to the marked-up bill, and today our chairman includes 
even more changes in the manager's amendment. We need to spend a great 
deal more time on dealing with vocational rehabilitation instead of 
over a weekend. This bill was out of committee for 2 months and we have 
seen a number of changes just in the last week.
  Mr. Chairman, we have tried to work on a compromise amendment, and my 
colleague from South Carolina and I have talked about and I think we 
share a lot of the same concerns, but, again, on short notice and 
without having time to sit down like we would like to, that is why I 
think we should set aside vocational rehabilitation for more judicious 
concern by this whole Congress instead of on a short-term basis and 
include it in this bill.

  The Green-Dickey amendment strikes title V from the CAREERS bill and 
assures the current vocational rehabilitation program remains intact. 
The gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Dickey] and I bring this to the floor 
because the vocational rehabilitation program is too important to 
continue to make arbitrary changes without any real thought about those 
most affected.
  For more than 75 years Federal aid for vocational rehabilitation 
services has been provided in the form of a block grant to the States. 
National performance and quality standards have been established and 
States have been given broad discretion to determine how best to meet 
them. This is the original block grant. It just did not happen this 
January here in Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, expanding consumer choice and integrating vocational 
rehabilitation services in a comprehensive system are worthwhile goals 
which I fully support. In its current form, title V would not advance 
these objectives. In fact, it could erode the quality and reduce the 
availability of rehabilitation services for persons with disabilities.
  People with disabilities face extreme challenges in the pursuit of 
meaningful employment, challenges far beyond those faced by the average 
person who accesses Federal job training programs. We want to ensure 
that any eligible individual is guaranteed access to the same quality 
and range of rehabilitation services no matter where they reside in a 
State or in which State they reside.
  The many people served by the current State vocational rehabilitation 
programs are coping with new disabilities, new self-images, new 
feelings about their competencies, new technologies and new ways to 
perform old tasks. Rehabilitation professionals are specifically 
trained to assist people in disabilities in these areas. Employees of 
more general training services do not have that ability.
  I like the CAREERS bill when it deals with average employees who are 
laid off. We need to merge the programs. But when we deal with 
vocational rehabilitation, we should not lump people who are the 
recipients or the beneficiaries of vocational rehabilitation in with 
the general population.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a great deal of concern, and we have letters 
from among the supporting organizations for the removal of vocational 
rehabilitation. The concern from these client agencies, not from the 
State bureaucrats as we heard, but from the clients, they are worried 
they will get lost in the shuffle when their provisions are included in 
this bill.
  As I said earlier, I voted for the bill as it came out of committee. 
I tried to amend it in committee and we lost, with the understanding 
that we would try to work something out. We have not been able to work 
it out to the support of the client organizations that raise this 
concern. I can mention some of these groups. We have letters, but we 
also have, and a lot of Members will 

[[Page H9206]]
see this as they come in the door to vote in a few minutes, a yellow 
sheet of paper that talks about the number of groups from the client 
groups who are supporting this amendment to strike title V.
  Another concern we have had is that we have heard the concern for the 
last 2 months and during our committee markup, in process, the 
Governors' Association wanting to be able to have flexibility. The 
concern I have about the original bill, the substitute I saw last week, 
and even the manager's amendment today is that it gives a great deal of 
flexibility to Governors and maybe not dealing with their legislatures 
in addressing it.
  I have a letter from the National Governors' Association and it says, 
and I will paraphrase, we believe that the bill could be improved by 
adoption of two amendments that would be offered on the floor today and 
ask that Members support these changes; the amendment by Representative 
Green of Texas to maintain existing law with respect to vocational 
rehabilitation programs.
  If we want to address the Governors' concern, the National Governors' 
Association supports this amendment.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and rise 
in opposition to the amendment.
  I wanted to get into a dialogue with the gentleman about the National 
Governors' Association letter, because, frankly, it took some of us on 
this side of the aisle by surprise, as the gentleman can imagine. We 
did a little investigation.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GUNDERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am glad for little things.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the little things we 
found out are, first and foremost, the gentleman will notice that 
letter is not signed by any Governor. The head of the National 
Governors' Association happens to be my Governor in Wisconsin. He did 
not sign that letter. The best we can detect is this is a letter agreed 
on by staff of various Governors, not the Governors themselves.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue 
to yield, I do not know the background to it, but I know it is on 
National Governors' Association stationery and your Governor is at the 
top of this. In fact, we heard your Governor a great many times in our 
committee this year.
  Again, this letter is dated today, September 19, and it is the best 
available information I have and the most reliable on the National 
Governors' Association. If they have problems with their executive 
director, they may want to talk with him.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time once again, as of 
4:50 p.m., I think that is the most reliable information the gentleman 
has. If we can continue this debate for a few minutes, we are going to 
have a letter that will be signed by my Governor that will oppose the 
Green amendment and that will indicate that we should keep the bill as 
it is, because in order to make the kind of comprehensive job training 
and integration that CAREERS is all about, vocational rehabilitation 
has to be a part of that bigger pie.
  What we are going to try to do, as we have done already in CAREERS, 
is, obviously, consolidate those programs. The Governors will have a 
role, and as the gentleman knows, many of the main vocational 
rehabilitation agencies in this country and associations support 
keeping title V in the bill. They believe this is the way to go.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. If the gentleman will continue to yield for 
30 seconds for my response.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman does not object when I 
ask for more time, he may go ahead.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I will not object to the 
gentleman's having more time as long as I can respond.
  I understand we may have a duel of letters here, one dated today, 
this afternoon, and maybe one later, but the concern I have is to 
whether the Governors are for or against it. I have just been told that 
the Governor of Texas, Governor Bush, is supporting the amendment. I 
know he does not represent the National Governors' Association but he 
is really concerned about including vocational rehabilitation in this 
bill. That is why I want vocational rehabilitation to be part of the 
one-stop center.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the problem with my 
good friend from Texas is that every time I yield to him, he does not 
yield back. This is not the Senate, this is the House, where we have 
time limits.
  I want to point out that I have been told that the Governor of Texas 
is not signing a letter pro or con, that he simply not taking a 
position on Title V. So, again, we are getting very different 
information regarding what the governor is saying, which suggests to 
me, with all due respect to the governors, that we should just ignore 
the Governors and debate this on the merits of what we think fits into 
this plan. When we do that, I think there is a lot of sense in the 
comprehensive integration of the CAREERS bill as we have brought it 
forth out of the committee.
  The fact is, we want to inject some local control, some flexibility, 
and some competition. We do not cut any of the dollars. As the 
gentleman knows, we have tried to respect the uniqueness of vocational 
rehabilitation, which is why that is a separate funding stream that is 
not combined with the adult or the youth training or the adult 
education, but that does not mean there is not clearly a need for some 
kinds of reform in competition within that particular sector.
  We think we have struck a fine balance in that. Certainly we have 
established a position that ought to take us into conference with the 
Senate, and, therefore, I would encourage my colleagues to stick with 
the bill as we have brought it out. It is a delicate balance. It is a 
compromise. And I would encourage us to reject the amendment.
  Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words and I rise in support of this amendment.
  I want to give a little history of what is going on in Arkansas as 
far as this particular bill is concerned. About 6 or 7 months ago I 
started hearing about this from the people who are disabled and the 
people who are involved in the rehabilitation services in Pine Bluff, 
particularly Bobby Simpson, who is a direct of the Arkansas 
Rehabilitation Services.
  I was called upon, and had been called upon to go to meeting after 
meeting after meeting, Mr. Chairman, where people were coming and 
saying this is what is unusual, this is what is unique about the 
rehabilitation services; that there is a whole infrastructure set up in 
our rural area of Arkansas that takes into consideration both the needs 
of industries and businesses and the needs of the disabled people who 
would come under this service.
  I had bought into this some time ago. Six months ago I bought into 
this, and I said, no, I think the gentleman is right. Part of that 
comes from the fact that I myself have been disabled; that I have spent 
time recovering from polio, been unable to walk, and knowing what it is 
like to have an inability to do what I was setting out to do. And how 
that might have related to my vocation or my ability to function is 
something that brings me to this issue quite honestly.

  Mr. Chairman, I am aware of the fact that there is in this bill, the 
main bill not the amendment, a provision for this type of 
rehabilitation service to be given. My concern comes, though, not from 
the fact that the service would be given but by whom.
  If we give a generic service in this respect, it is going to leave 
out and put in last place those people who are disabled, and I think we 
have a special need for it. We can always come back later and say that 
we can put this back in. If, in fact, this amendment is allowed, and we 
keep this separate, we can come back later and we can tailor make a 
little bit more of a type of a service that would combine the needs of 
industry and the needs of the disabled person.
  Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of this. I would like to have this 
amendment pass.
  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of the Green amendment. H.R. 
1617 

[[Page H9207]]
is a good bill in almost all respects. It is a major step forward in 
our effort to try to make government more responsive to the needs of 
people, our efforts to streamline it, to save money and make it work 
for people who want to get to work, who need the skills that this bill 
will help them secure. There is a piece of the bill that should not be 
in it and that is why I rise in support of the Green amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the Green amendment would make clear that this bill 
does not have any effect on any program that is in place under the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. I know I speak for many people in the 
Congress when I say that we applaud the work of the chairman of the 
committee, applaud the work of the committee staff that worked so hard 
to bring this bill about, and it is not an effort to take away from the 
overall direction of the bill to lift this one piece out of it.
  I have worked with people in the disability community in my area and 
they are very concerned that this provision is going to be 
counterproductive.

                              {time}  1600

  The public vocational rehabilitation program has put already over 13 
million people back to work. It is the most successful job training 
program in the world for disabled. It more than pays for itself, 
because it takes people who want to work and help themselves and puts 
them back in the work force. It is a highly specialized process and 
does not fit in the CAREERS bill. It offers a broad range of services 
individually tailored to meet the needs of the disabled, and it is a 
great success story in and of itself. Where there is tremendous need 
for reform in so many other areas of the vocational training, this is 
an area that is a success. I do not think we should take a chance on 
compromising a program that already works in an effort to try to 
achieve economies of scale that I do not think would accrue to the 
benefit of this program.
  So I urge my colleagues to support the Green amendment. I commend my 
colleague from Texas for his hard work in this area, and once again 
commend the sponsors of this bill for putting it together. This is a 
piece of it that needs to be deleted.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support the Green amendment, and make 
sure this bill does not compromise great programs that are helping 
people that need the help, who want a helping hand and not a handout. I 
urge my colleagues to support the Green amendment.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in the strongest possible opposition I can to 
this amendment, because it is a direct slap in the face of the 
disability community, and particularly a slap in the face to those with 
severe disabilities.
  Now, let us talk about quality. That is what was mentioned several 
times. That is what we heard so much about, quality. Now, look at the 
record. You see, if you are going to be brainwashed by the State rehab 
people, then, of course, quality is not going to matter, because 
quality is not what is there at the present time.
  A little over 1 million persons are served under the current Federal-
State vocational rehabilitation program. How many cases are closed in a 
year's time? At the most, 200,000. But closed, closed for what?
  What is the rehabilitation standard? Well, let me tell you what VR's 
rehabilitative standard means: A 60-day job placement. Big deal. Big 
deal. A 60-day job placement.
  Under this low standard, even with a standard that low, they could 
not come up with better than 71 percent. So, again, if you are looking 
at quality, then you are not looking at existing programs, you are 
being brainwashed by State vocational rehabilitation people who do not 
want any change.
  They are not interested in quality. They are interested in keeping 
their control. They are interested in keeping their control over the 
disabled community. The largest group, who is headquartered in Dallas, 
TX, has indicated to us, ``Do not even think about decoupling this. Do 
not allow them to do that to us, because then we continue to be 
stepsisters, as we have been in the past.''
  Under the tougher Social Security Administration standards, and that 
is a placement after 9 months for severely disabled persons on SSI and 
SSDI, only 9 percent of such case closures were rehabilitated. The 1993 
GAO report on vocational rehabilitation programs concluded that the 
gains in economic status made by clients were temporary. Within the 
study group, the earnings of those classified as rehabilitated under 
the 60-day standard, I keep repeating, had, after 2 years, returned to 
near or below preprogram levels.
  Mr. Chairman, we are trying to help those most disabled, those most 
disabled in our community. They are telling us, ``Do not let us suffer 
as you have in the past under a state-run monopoly.'' They are saying 
to us, ``Please, give us an opportunity to have some competition, so 
that we can get improved services.''
  Someone mentioned they might cream them. That is exactly what they do 
at the State level at the present time. That is why the disability 
community is so upset that someone is going to take them out of the 
CAREERS bill. They want to be there, because they know that the 
services they have received in the past have been anything but 
exemplary.
  The Projects With Industries business-community partnership placed 
10,901 persons in 1994,\8\ 1 percent of whom were severely disabled. 
That is what that competition did. And then they are worried that 
somehow or another there will be fly-by-night operations in our system. 
Read the legislation. They cannot be in there. They could not get any 
reimbursement if they were in the system. We have quality control set 
up in this bill that prevents any kind of reimbursement going to fly-
by-night operations.
  But this project, a similar project in the private sector, had 81 
percent of those who were severely disabled, placed in meaningful jobs.
  The status quo advocates cannot argue that their success is 
demonstrated or that their expertise is unique. However, in this bill 
we allow them to continue. In this bill we say State government agents 
can still provide the services. That is in the bill. We had some 
legislation that we were working out that even improved that, which 
hopefully will be done between now and conference.
  But, again, I plead with my colleagues: If you really have any 
concern about the severely disabled in this country, then, please, do 
not allow the status quo to continue. We have to improve their lot.
  Mr. Chairman, I might add also that I am not sure where the 
Governors' letter came from, but I believe the majority of Governors 
are on my side of the aisle, not the other side of the aisle, and I 
have their letter here. They are saying just the opposite.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation, which is good 
legislation, but also in support of this amendment, which will make it 
a much better piece of legislation.
  I have been amused at the suggestion by some of our colleagues that 
we should just ignore what the Governors say. You see, we have been 
through this before in Texas. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gene Green] 
when the issue of the formula for welfare came up during the welfare 
reform effort, pointed out that Texas was about to get hit and get hit 
hard by virtue of that formula.
  Our Governor sat on his hands and did not want to get involved. But 
thanks to the efforts of Congressman Green, he has finally gotten 
motivated and gotten involved and recognized what a devastating effect 
that would have on the State of Texas, and we are beginning to get some 
change, belatedly, but finally. I think the same thing will be true 
with reference to the gentleman's efforts on this question of 
vocational rehabilitation.
  The approach being taken here with this piece of legislation here 
today is really only taking a Texas idea and bringing it to the 
national level, because we have already done essentially the same thing 
in the last session of the Texas legislature that is being done in this 
bill. That is to merge our job training programs and to recognize we 
can do more for those who need work force development, job training, if 
we merge programs together, eliminate some of the inefficiencies. But 
when we 

[[Page H9208]]
did that in the State of Texas, we specifically excepted vocational 
rehabilitation, because it is a unique area. When you are dealing with 
persons with disabilities, they have some special needs in order to be 
able to achieve to the full extent of their ability.
  I think that the gentleman, through his amendment, recognizes that, 
and as that message gets out I am sure somewhere in the legislative 
process the Governors of Texas and other States are going to join in 
recognizing in the State of Texas we have one of the most outstanding 
rehabilitation programs that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gene Green] 
and I have both had occasion to work with when we were in the State 
legislature, and it is not only the people that work as the 
rehabilitation experts, but the individuals with disabilities, who I 
know in my case, came out, a number of them, this past weekend, when I 
held office hours in a grocery store, to tell me of their very great 
concern about this piece of legislation, and that when you merge what 
is in essence already a block grant program and you merge that into a 
bigger block grant program, it may not be a merger. It may be a 
submerging of the particular needs of individuals with disabilities.
  I know the gentleman has some more thoughts on this. I do, too. I 
would be glad to yield to you if you want to respond to some of these 
concerns, and then I want to add a further comment about the impact on 
Texas of making this kind of mistake.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, another colleague of ours 
wants to join me. I would like to answer our chairman's concern about 
the current system. He thinks that the sponsors claim the current 
system is so bad anything is preferable, not this bill.
  With that, I know our colleague from Massachusetts has to go to 
another markup.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the 
gentleman from Texas yielding. I wanted to just come to the House floor 
to speak in strong support of the Green amendment. This vocational 
rehab has done good work for tens and tens of thousands of some of the 
disabled people in this country that just simply need a little job 
training to be able to become productive members of society.
  In my own neighborhood in Brighton, MA, there is a voc-rehab center 
that has trained literally thousands and thousands of people to go into 
mail rooms, to work at some of the biggest companies and the smallest 
companies in the city of Boston and the surrounding areas. Over 4,400 
people in the State of Massachusetts were helped just last year through 
this program.
  Why in God's name do we have to reform every program in the 
Government, regardless of whether or not it works or does not? This is 
fixing a problem that does not exist. You ask every one of the major 
voc-rehab groups in this country whether or not they want this bill. 
Their answer is a singular no.
  This is a program that works to provide people an opportunity to grow 
to their full human potential. They have been denied, they have been 
injured, they have been born with brain defects, with physical 
deformities. They are struggling to become productive members of 
society.
  The Government has a sort of Lincolnesque Republican idea that we 
want everyone to be treated equitably. That basic comprehension of how 
we ought to treat individuals in this country is what are contained in 
the values of the voc-rehab bill. So why do we have to come just in the 
name of reform? Are we so desperate to convince the people we are 
reforming everything in the Government that we will take a problem that 
does not exist and go and reform that as well?
   Mr. Chairman, let us keep the program. Let us support the Green 
amendment.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
   Mr. Chairman, let us be clear about the nature of this debate on the 
amendment of the gentleman from Texas. What we are really talking about 
here is whether or not we are going to maintain the status quo. We have 
heard arguments over the last couple of minutes that the present 
vocational rehabilitation program is working well, so therefore the 
argument goes, ``It ain't broke and doesn't need fixing.''
  Well, as the chairman of the committee pointed out, if you look at 
unemployment for disabled persons, the statistics are staggering. Out 
of 12.6 million severely disabled persons in America today, only 2.9 
million are employed, which equals a placement rate of 23 percent.
  Furthermore, employment rates for persons with moderate disabilities 
are comparable with the nondisabled. But employment rates for the 
severely disabled are drastically lower. So the only conclusion you can 
make is that the advocates of the status quo, their argument is that 
vocational rehabilitation should not have a more positive impact on 
employment.
  We also know that the present system is highly procedural and 
bureaucratic. Out of $2.5 billion, that is the combined Federal and 
State funding for vocational rehabilitation funding today, 10 percent 
is spent on administration, 34.6 percent on counseling and placement, 
and 54.8 percent on purchased services. This is a very process oriented 
program, and it is one that, by being so monopolistic, has very little 
to do with performance and results.
  In fact, compare it with one program in the private sector, a program 
called Projects with Industries, a business community partnership which 
placed 10,901 persons in 1994, 81 percent of whom were disabled, 25 
percent of those served by this program were severely disabled and 
their cost per placement was far less than the current Federal-State 
program.
  So again, I think we have to be clear here. The current vocational 
rehabilitation system, contrary to the argument we hear from the 
advocates for the status quo, does not work. The current Federal-State 
rehabilitation system produces successes that are below comparable 
private programs and that are proven to not have much long-term impact. 
Another way to put it is we are not getting very much return on 
the taxpayer dollar.

  The current vocational rehabilitation system segregates persons with 
disabilities. And in the CAREERS bill, we are integrating vocational 
rehabilitation with all other job training programs. Therefore, people 
with disabilities will no longer be ignored by general job training 
programs, because they have their own system and are forced into that 
separate system. CAREERS would integrate the different job training 
programs on a much better basis and it would effectively, and here is 
where the rub comes in, eliminate the vocational rehabilitation system 
monopoly.

                              {time}  1615

  State vocational rehabilitation systems have no competition, and, 
without competition, services are not consumer responsive.
  So if my colleagues favor the status quo, if they want to see this 
bureaucracy and process-focused, process-led system continue, which we 
believe on this side of the aisle leads to wasted funds and poor 
services, then by all means vote for the gentleman's amendment. But if 
they are against a monopoly, if they want to see more accountability in 
the delivery of services, job training services for the disabled, then 
support the original language in the bill and defeat the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I was interested in hearing 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs]. I know we share the concern 
and support for the overall bill but not for this amendment.
  You cannot put a rate-of-return requirement or a cost-benefit 
analysis requirement on vocational rehab services. It costs more to 
train and educate someone who needs those services than someone who is 
laid off because of a job.
  Let us talk about the program. Let me respond a little bit to our 
chairman when he talked about the failure of the 

[[Page H9209]]
current program. We had 1992 amendments that increased the number of 
persons with disabilities eligible for the services. The agency case 
loads have risen significantly. Most of those new participants are 
persons with severe disabilities.
  In 1993, the year of the GAO study, when these changes were being 
phased in, the number and percentage of successful cases closed dipped. 
The Republicans are now trying to use this statistic to junk the whole 
system and to talk about how bad it is. It has been serving people for 
70 years, and 13 million people have found jobs under the current 
vocational rehab system. Let us not throw it out and just call for 
reform.
  Let me talk about the GAO study that justifies their attacks. What 
they do not tell us is that the GAO overall assessment of the rehab 
program was positive. For every $1 invested in the current programs, it 
generates $18 in the form of reduced disabilities payments and taxes 
paid by these participants who obtain employment; whether it is 60 days 
and they have to come back to be retrained or a year, we are getting an 
$18 to $1 return. The earnings of persons with disabilities who 
participate in the program are four times greater than those who did 
not.
  I would like to see it eight times greater, but let us not trash the 
current system just because they do not like something. We cannot put 
cost-benefit analysis when we are dealing with disabled people, because 
we need to make sure we provide that service whether it is cost-
effective or not.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from 
Texas for his amendment. Mr. Chairman, I have heard a very hollow 
sound. The reason is because we pretend to argue on behalf of those who 
are physically challenged. I think, if we looked at the real facts, we 
would find out that who you go to is the consumer.

  I have a neighbor who works in rehabilitation. It is my belief and it 
is her recommendation that the specialized trainer, the specialized 
professional is the important key to helping the physically and 
mentally challenged because part of the fullness of what America offers 
is equality for all. Title V will simply decimate the rehabilitation 
delivery system. It particularly hurts those who are blind and need 
special attention in their job training.
  I am listening to those on the other side of the aisle argue that 
they know best, but I can read off a variety of different organizations 
who support the removal of vocational rehabilitation from H.R. 1617: 
The Alexander Graham Bell Association of the Deaf, the American Council 
of the Blind, the American Society for Deaf Children, the Association 
of Community Based Rehabilitation Personnel. And the list goes on and 
on and on.
  The real key is what has been successful and it has been successful 
when we focused and made sure that the training for those who are 
physically and mentally challenged is particularized.
  Block grants equal scatter grants. It does not focus. It does not 
help. It does not enhance. What we have in a vocational training 
program is the need for a highly specialized process. We need a wealth 
of expertise. Why would we look at the success of 13 million people 
going to work and now we are trying to change it?
  I am not sure where our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
trying to go. But I can assure them that those who are physically and 
mentally challenged are on the side of the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 
Gene Green, and those of us who believe that the special attention that 
we pay to those who are physically and mentally challenged has resulted 
in a bounty of successful workers, of people taking their rightful 
place in the American society and the recognition that all are created 
equal.
  I would ask that the House join me and join the gentleman from Texas, 
Mr. Gene Green, in eliminating this provision and accepting the fact 
that we have a responsibility to ensure an even playing field and to 
make sure now that 13 million people are at work, that more people who 
are physically and mentally challenged and the children who need to be 
trained can also come up and be trained under the right rehabilitation 
system.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this debate has baffled me somewhat. It is really at 
the core of much of what we are trying to do. One of the core 
assumptions here is that somehow the Governors of the United States are 
not going to be as sensitive to those who are physically and mentally 
challenged and need vocational rehabilitation as much as Washington 
would be, that Washington is the fount for all wisdom, that the laws 
that we devise here are somehow better able to take care for the people 
in their States than the Governors themselves who presumably are more 
responsible and more responsive to the people there on a regular basis 
than those State legislatures are.
  In fact, this bill kept four different block grant categories, one of 
which was vocational rehabilitation, because we were concerned that 
there might be some creaming. In that we protected the funding stream.
  If we in fact remove title V, it is not clear what we go to 
conference to the Senate with, since they have more for a general block 
grant and in fact passing this amendment could hurt both substantively 
in the sense of flexibility and in this bill in conference committee.
  Furthermore, there is a lot of talk about how all the different 
groups feel on this. In fact, United Cerebral Palsy, the Arc, the 
Association for Retarded Citizens, Goodwill Industries, oppose taking 
this section out of the bill because they believe that it will provide 
more services to the people that they are providing services to and who 
they serve and who they advocate for. In fact most of the groups who 
favor this amendment are more people who are participating and getting 
funds from the Government in this process as opposed to those 
necessarily working on an individual basis without having a stake in 
how the programs are administered.
  Many of the concerns that were raised earlier as far as State 
flexibility have been addressed. In fact, if Governors like the 
existing program really well and they are working in Indiana, for 
example, I do not think that Governor Bayh thinks a Republican Congress 
is going to do a better job for taking care of people in Indiana than 
he does. He is not from my party, but I am willing to give him more 
flexibility in the State.
  I have met individuals in my office who have been served well in a 
number of programs, visited programs for those who need special 
vocational rehabilitation in Whitley County and in Huntington County. 
Those programs are working well.
  At the State level they will adapt that and understand that and 
include those programs that are working well. But to say that we in 
Washington are the fount for all wisdom, that we cannot block grant and 
let the people at the local level make these decisions is challenging 
the core premise for this legislation. It has nothing to do with 
whether or not we want to serve those who need our help, because in 
fact we have a category that makes sure the funding stream is there. It 
is how it is implemented.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to add one other comment. That 
is, I served for almost 5 years on the Governor's Committee for 
Employment for Disabled Persons in California. I really based my 
experience on the large disability organizations which the gentleman 
mentioned, which include the United Cerebral Palsy, the Association for 
Retarded Citizens and Goodwill Industries in opposing removing 
vocational rehabilitation from Careers. These are the largest advocacy 
organizations for disabled Americans.
  I wanted to just read quickly one paragraph from Joan Thompson, the 
chairperson for the Governmental Affairs Committee for the Arc. She 
writes to Chairman Goodling: Our constituency, as you know, is among 
the most unemployed and underemployed segments of our society. Many 
citizens with mental retardation and other disabilities have also faced 
a lifetime of segregation and a woeful lack of opportunity to become 
productive members of our society. In this time of significantly 
constrained Federal spending, it is vital that every program with the 

[[Page H9210]]
potential to help people get and keep jobs be fully utilized. As 
employers prepare to assume new roles in work force development, it is 
imperative that they recognize that people with disabilities are a 
largely untapped source of new and willing workers. To delink--as the 
gentleman would do in his amendment--the vocational rehabilitation 
system from the new system will only serve to isolate the vocational 
rehabilitation system and people with mental retardation from the 
employers. No one would gain, except those professionals in the 
vocational rehabilitation system whose sole agenda is to protect their 
turf. We do not think that is what reform is all about.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman understand 
that the original block grant proposal--we have had block grants for 75 
years from the Federal Government to the States. Each State already has 
that ability. It does not take this bill or this amendment to do that.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, but this is less prescriptive and gives 
flexibility to the States.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. The gentleman understands States already 
have flexibility, though.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Green 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Green amendment for the sake 
of all Americans with disabilities and for every American that might 
tomorrow find themselves among those with disabilities.
  I think we must exercise the greatest possible care in how we reform 
the vocational rehabilitation system. Let us not do it haphazardly as 
this bill is doing it. Let us not do it with confusing last-minute 
amendments. Let us go back to committee and do it right. That is what 
the Green amendment is telling us to do.
  I support integrating vocational rehabilitation into a one-stop 
system. I support enhancing consumer choice, and I support adopting a 
more market oriented approach. But I cannot support the haphazardly 
constructed mess that we are faced with here in title V.
  It is important for Members to understand the shoddiness of the 
process through which these provisions were developed, very shoddy 
process.
  The bill makes the most far-reaching changes in vocational 
rehabilitation in 70 years. Yet our committee did not hold a single 
hearing on these provisions, not one hearing. No public opportunities 
were provided for people with disabilities who rely on vocational 
rehabilitation to make comments and suggestions. Everything was drafted 
behind closed doors without meaningful input from the public.
  Unlike other parts of this bill, no efforts have been made to involve 
the minority in crafting title V. For as long as anyone can remember, 
disability policy in this House has been forged on a bipartisan basis. 
Republicans and Democrats worked in harmony together to set policy. 
That proud tradition ends with this bill.
  Everybody recalls the Americans with Disabilities Act. I think we all 
recall the leadership of Justin Dart in that, in the passage of that 
act. Justin Dart is a Republican disability activist, and Justin Dart 
was the Bush administration commissioner for the Rehabilitation 
Services Administration.
  In a letter dated August 30, 1995, Justin Dart says the following: I 
oppose the Careers Act, H.R. 1617, as it applies to vocational 
rehabilitation. The present form of H.R. 1617 would be harmful to 
people with disabilities and the Nation.
  I agree wholeheartedly with Justin Dart. To make matters worse, the 
sponsors of this bill keep making dramatic changes in title V at the 
last minute. Last Friday one set of changes was made. Late last night 
another set were made. This morning still another set of changes. 
Instead of improving the bill, each one of these changes had made title 
V progressively stranger and more convoluted.

                              {time}  1630

  What these new provisions will do is impossible to know for sure. 
Preschoolers take greater care in making a fingerpainting than the 
sponsors of this bill have in putting together title V. They have great 
contempt for the community of people with disabilities in this process.
  The sponsors say that anything is better than the current system. 
That is garbage. Some 9 million Americans with disabilities now have 
jobs, thanks to this program; 1.2 million are currently receiving 
services. The program's performance has been improving impressively. 
The job placement rolls increased 6.4 percent last year over the 
previous year. This year they are estimated to go up another 6 percent.
  The system is also doing more with less. The number of persons served 
has skyrocketed since 1992, while the funds have remained even. Most of 
these new persons being served have the most severe disabilities, also.
  I recently received a letter from a woman in Parkersburg, WV who did 
not think anything is better than the current system. She was first 
disabled in a car accident and then abandoned by her husband after he 
got his hands on her insurance check. She could not afford a private 
hospital. She called vocational rehabilitation. She writes, ``I was 
treated wonderful. They taught me everything, like how to get in and 
out of bed, the shower, and how to drive with hand controls, all of 
this all by myself. They gave me back my independence. I am living at 
home, caring for the children, doing almost all I did before the 
accident. I thank God voc rehab exists, and I pray it will be there for 
others. Until you have been in my shoes, you cannot understand the 
destruction that passing H.R. 1617 would cause.''
  None of the people with disabilities have had a chance to say to the 
committee, to the majority Republicans in this House, what great 
destruction H.R. 1617 would cause. I hope that perhaps the committee 
managers would reconsider at this point in light of the bipartisan 
opposition to the bill, and recall it, and let us start all over on 
title V.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of rising to speak in 
strong opposition to the Green amendment. I think one thing needs to be 
clarified. There was a comment that we never had hearings on this. We 
did have hearings. We did hear from people. We specifically wanted to 
have input from the people that would be involved, and we have letters 
here from many different groups that support the bill, that do not want 
to be excluded from the bill. I think it is important that we hear what 
they have to say.
  The United Cerebral Palsy Association wrote this letter to Chairman 
Goodling. They indicate their strong support of the bill and their 
opposition to an amendment that would exclude this block from the bill. 
It says: ``UCPA,'' the United Cerebral Palsy Association, ``is a 
network of 155 affiliate organizations across America that are 
committed to advancing the independence, productivity, and full 
citizenship of people with disabilities. UCPA has worked diligently 
with House staff to ensure that the CAREERS Act will assist in 
furthering employment for people with disabilities and not create yet 
more barriers in their path.''
  We have also heard from Goodwill Industries, who have done great 
work. Last year they helped 23,000 people who were in some way disabled 
in employment. They also strongly support the bill and oppose this 
amendment.
  We have several letters that are similar that support the bill. They 
have been working with us. We have been working with them, right up 
until the current moment, to make sure that we are able to provide 
better service and reach out to all of these people.
  That is the whole purpose of the bill, is to reach down into the 
local community, to reach more people, to have better service.
  There have been other things said about Governors who support or do 
not support it. Let me read this letter that was just received from the 
Republican Governors' Association:
  ``Dear Bill,'' speaking of the chairman of the committee, the 
gentleman 

[[Page H9211]]
from Pennsylvania, Mr. Goodling, ``as members of the Republican 
Governors' Association Task Force on Work Force Development, we write 
to clarify our position on the Vocational Rehabilitation Title,'' which 
is title V, ``of the CAREERS Act.

  ``While we have previously expressed numerous concerns related to 
design and delivery of services through title V of the act, we firmly 
believe this title should be included in the CAREERS Act. It is 
essential that vocational rehabilitation services be integrated as part 
of the overall State work force development system.''
  I think it has been mentioned, we have covered this strongly, that we 
are trying to reach out and help these people. They have participated 
in the hearings that we held, and while everybody is not totally 
satisfied, this bill does the best job in improving over the status quo 
and in reaching out.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McKEON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. I appreciate the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee yielding to me.
  I think it is important to stress, Mr. Chairman, just before we 
prepare to vote here, that we completely reform and overhaul the 
Federal job training programs. We create these four consolidated block 
grants. This is the only block grant where we not only maintain the 
current level of funding, but increase funding. I want to impress upon 
my colleagues that under our proposal, under the CAREERS Act, we are 
increasing funding for vocational rehabilitation employment-related 
services. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding so I could make that 
point.
  Mr. McKEON. Reclaiming my time, I think this brings up another very 
important point. The gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Zeliff] who 
spoke earlier today, had a bill that tried to do some of the same 
things. His bill was one block grant out to the local States and 
communities. One of the main reasons why we broke out into four block 
grants was specifically so we could help and do a better job with 
vocational rehabilitation. Vote ``no'' on the Green amendment. Support 
the bill.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Green amendment. The issue 
that I believe has been misunderstood is the question of the block 
grant. The legislation that is being proposed here today is not 
creating a new block grant for vocational rehabilitation. The 
vocational rehabilitation program has always been under a block grant. 
That is the current program that is in effect today.
  The second misunderstanding is that this bill that is before us is 
going to create flexibility for the States in operating the program. 
The current program affords the States full flexibility in designing 
the programs which they feel are required to meet the needs of their 
disabled population and paying particular attention to those who are 
severely disabled, who have been through accidents, who have had stokes 
and other kinds of very debilitating experiences.
  The current program has met the national requirements. It has 
fulfilled the needs of our local population. It has abided by 
performance and quality standards which the Congress has set, and yet 
it has given the States broad discretion in determining how to meet 
those standards.

  The difficulty that we have in accepting title V, as written in the 
bill, is that the committee, the people that are responsible for 
writing this legislation, have not had any opportunity to deliberate on 
the needs and the specific reasons for consolidating this program into 
a new form of support for the States. Without that opportunity of 
hearing from the constituency, from the providers and so forth, it 
seems to me foolhardy for the Congress to now change a program that has 
been so successful.
  Title V of this bill establishes a very prescriptive, one-size-fits-
all rehabilitation delivery system for every State, based upon the 
concept of private enterprise market-driven forces.
  Under title V of this bill, vocational rehabilitation clients would 
be provided vouchers through the work force development board, or a 
one-stop-career center, to shop for their own services. The 
availability of services in this private enterprise market-driven 
system is almost beyond belief as to how it could service this 
extremely disadvantaged population that needs a different character and 
mode of service, as has already been described. There is no guarantee 
whatsoever in the legislation that I can find that this one-stop 
opportunity, as they are saying they are providing, is going to meet 
the needs of these individuals.
  Someone said earlier in the debate, in defending title V, that what 
is being done here is that the Congress is somehow substituting for 
what the people out there in the community have expressed in other 
areas as changes that must be made. Let me tell the Members that I am 
not here defending the providers and the bureaucracy of the State. I am 
here defending the people who have said to me time and time again one 
of the most wonderful services they have found available in their 
States currently are the services under the vocational rehabilitation 
program.
  I have a letter here today that I received from a Curtis Inoue in 
Honolulu. I did not solicit this letter, but he was alarmed when he 
heard about what was happening to the program under title V. Let me 
read a portion of the letter.
  He says, and I quote, ``Public vocational rehabilitation has proven 
to be a successful cost-effective method of providing gainful 
employment to individuals with disabilities. I speak from experience, 
as an individual who is deaf. I have benefited greatly from vocational 
rehabilitation services. Whereas I was once a Supplemental Security 
Income recipient and Medicare beneficiary, I am now a productive, 
taxpaying citizen, thanks to public vocational rehabilitation services.
  ``I simply cannot see how the unique needs of individuals with 
disabilities can be met through generic programs that serve broad 
categories of individuals seeking employment. Vocational rehabilitation 
professionals with specialized skills are an essential component of 
ensuring long-term job retention for persons with disabilities. There 
is no way that I and many others would be in the position that we are 
in without having had such services. Please vote to sustain separate 
funding and services for vocational rehabilitation programs, and 
encourage your colleagues to do the same.''
  I rise to ask my colleagues to do exactly that.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GOODLING. First, Mr. Chairman, I would say that I am very happy 
that the present legislation we have before us does keep the separate 
funding.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Goodling and by unanimous consent, Mrs. Mink of 
Hawaii was allowed to proceed for 10 additional seconds.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman mentioned prescriptive. I 
merely wanted to say current law has 37 major requirements. The CAREERS 
bill has only 14.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I yield to the gentleman from Texas, 
Mr. Gene Green, who correctly points out that the National Association 
of Governors, the bipartisan group of Governors, not only supports this 
bill, but supports the Green amendment to this bill.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from New 
York for yielding to me. I am glad he pointed that out. Again, the 
Governors are not here on the floor of the House. They have their 
authority in the State legislatures and they can work their will there, 
but we do have a battle of letters here today from Republican 
Governors, national Governors. The national Governors do support the 
flexibility of keeping vocational rehabilitation as a separate revenue 
source or a separate stream, separate from this CAREERS bill, because 
it has worked for 70 years. Sure, they have gone through reforms in 
1992, and we will reform them again, but we do 

[[Page H9212]]
not need to do it by lumping them all together with everyone else.
  Mr. ENGEL. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support 
of the Green amendment. I have many reservations about the bill, and 
this amendment addresses one of my chief concerns. I do understand and 
agree with many of the points in support of the bill. The CAREERS bill 
does eliminate much of the overlap that exists in many Federal 
education and training programs. I am pleased that some effort is being 
made to correct the problems that exist. However, I feel that the 
negatives of this bill outweigh the positives, and would end up 
damaging the system that is in effect, rather than fixing it. Unless 
changes such as the amendment of the gentleman from Texas approved, it 
would be very difficult for me to support the bill.

  This bill goes too far, I believe, in addressing problems that need 
to be corrected. Instead of dealing with overlap and waste, the CAREERS 
bill virtually guts the job training system for one that has little 
accountability and not enough safeguards for those who need these 
programs to improve their lives.
  I did not have the chance to speak on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams] earlier, but I would like to take 
a while to comment on it here. As this bill is written, the Governors 
would have the chief authority to monitor funds provided by the Federal 
Government. The authors of the bill claim this will cut bureaucracy. 
However, instead of cutting bureaucracy, I believe this bill would 
actually increase it on the State level.

                              {time}  1645

  In my State of New York, the bill would impose a dual system of 
services for recipients. Currently a State system has been established 
through the provisions of the State constitution and statutes 
promulgated by the State legislature. This system administers both 
State and Federal funding.
  However, the CAREERS bill will set up a separate system to monitor 
the Federal funding, to be administered by the Governor. Instead of 
improving services for New York recipients, this legislation will now 
install two levels of bureaucracy, making it more difficult to receive 
the same services. This is not the direction that this bill should be 
taking.
  The proposal to change the way the vocational rehabilitation system 
is structured is totally unacceptable to me as currently written. The 
bill would limit State flexibility and create uneven access to services 
to those that are truly needy.
  I am concerned that the specialized services that the people who 
depend on these programs require could be sacrificed in order to 
satisfy the financial requirements of the bill. Consolidating the 
specialized programs under this system with generic work force 
preparation activities could jeopardize the recipients of vocational 
rehabilitation services. Populations such as the blind and disabled 
need our full attention and must not be shortchanged.
  The current system is fully supported by the disability community and 
is kept intact in the Senate bill. We must strike title V from this 
bill so that we can continue to help those who most need it. In the 
fervor to allegedly cut bureaucracy through the use of large block 
grants, we may just be creating new problems without taking care of the 
needs of the recipients.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill has many flaws. It is underfunded, it has far 
too much consolidation, and it severely and adversely changes the 
vocational rehabilitation system.
  This amendment can at least save the vocational rehabilitation system 
so that our recipients can be properly served. We are already cutting 
too much from the recipients. Let us not limit their access any 
further.
  I want to conclude by saying what I have said many times in the past. 
I do not believe that block grants are a panacea to the needs of the 
States. They only work if they are fully funded, and this bill cuts a 
great deal.
  I have grave reservations but believe that by supporting the 
gentleman's amendment, this bill will then go in the right direction. I 
urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, vocational rehabilitation is not broken, and I have not 
heard anyone claim it is. Vocational rehabilitation is one of the most 
important mechanisms in America, successfully administered and applied, 
for assisting individuals with disabilities in obtaining primarily 3 
things: Productive employment, to live independently, and to thrive in 
mainstream society. The system is not broken. It works.
  I support the gentleman's amendment because he recognizes and his 
amendment cures the problem that the bill as now written with regard to 
vocational rehabilitation--by the way, I want to say parenthetically, I 
still want a bipartisan approach to this bill and I am still for this 
bill. We have worked a lot on it in a very bipartisan way.
  But the gentleman from Texas understands that the bill disrupts the 
current vocational rehabilitation system by limiting State flexibility, 
by diluting accountability and, worse, in the name of vouchers and 
private sector evening, private sector delivery, it creates uneven 
access to services. The rehabilitation clients who need the most 
services, the most attention, the most application, would be the ones 
least served under the legislated proposal.
  Vouchers would not be an appropriate mechanism for the most severely 
disadvantaged citizens in need of vocational rehabilitation to be 
served. If one doubts that, look at the outpouring of opposition that 
greeted this bill from the disability community itself.
  I suppose your phones have continued to ring all day long with 
opposition from the disability community. No, these are not State 
employees. These are people in need of help who like the system they 
now have because it is serving them properly. It does work.
  We have heard just within the last hour or so from the National 
Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems, support the gentleman's 
amendment. We have heard from the Rehabilitation and Continuing 
Education Programs Consortium, from the National Council on 
Rehabilitation Education, from the National Association of 
Developmental disabilities Councils.
  The University of Tennessee at Knoxville, their College of Education, 
the Rehabilitation and Deafness Unit has written to us saying the bill 
is not right as it is, it needs fixing in the rehab department. They 
like the Green amendment. The National Rehabilitation Association, the 
Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation, the 
National Council of State Agencies for the Blind.
  These are the users of this system. These are the clients. These are 
the people that need the help, that get the service every day, saying 
the Green amendment is the right way to do this.
  Let me make a suggestion. I urge my colleagues to drop this title 
from the bill, vote to drop this title from the bill. Let us review, in 
concert with the disability community, the vocational rehabilitation 
community, what we might do together as we move to conference.
  If anybody thinks that we have already spent a long, long time on 
this vocational rehabilitation problem, let me tell the Members we have 
not. We had one hearing. I am the ranking member on the subcommittee. 
We had one hearing.
  We heard primarily from the industry that would benefit by these 
vouchers. Everyone else that came before our hearing would have been in 
support of the Green amendment and was opposed to the bill as it sat. 
So the rehabilitation community is saying, ``Slow down, wait a minute, 
you really are trying to fix something here that is not broken and 
works quite well.''

  I urge Members on both the Democrat and Republican side to listen to 
the disability community that is in need of this vocational 
rehabilitation. Vote to drop this title from the bill, and let us sit 
down as we have thus far and work this out in a bipartisan manner.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. FOWLER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GOODLING. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

[[Page H9213]]

   Mr. Chairman, I will just take a minute. First of all, I want to 
make sure that everybody understands, vouchers is an administration 
proposal. The administration, I believe, of that side of the aisle. But 
it is an administration proposal. That is what vouchers are all about.
  Second, in Georgia at the present time, they are using vouchers to 
serve the most disabled, the most disabled.
  Lastly, all the references we just heard were references from State 
employees, State government, all of those who have some special 
concern. We did not hear those references from the severely disabled 
individuals.
  I would hope that we can save the bill. The only way we can do that, 
of course, is to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words, and I rise in support of this amendment.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I thank my colleague the gentleman from 
California for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we are getting down to calling a vote on the 
amendment. Let me try and sum up the debate we have had for a good 
while here.
  We have 2 different groups of governors. I have a letter from the 
National Governors Association saying they support the amendment, that 
we have had flexibility in vocational rehab for 70 years, it is the 
original block grant. Why lose a program that is effective, that was 
changed in 1992 and will be up for reauthorization in 2 years? Why 
should we lose that and lose that flow to our disabled community?
  Let me talk about what the CAREERS Act would do. Under current law, 
eligible individuals are guaranteed access to the same quality and 
range of services no matter where they reside in a State. This 
guarantee would be eliminated under title V, whether the Work Force 
Development Board and their community had decided to provide this 
service, whether the work force development area could afford the 
service. That is why we need a State agency to provide this support and 
that is why the current system does not need to be lumped in with the 
CAREERS bill. The CAREERS bill is a good bill, I was proud to vote for 
it in committee as it came out with the understanding we would be able 
to address voc rehab. We have not been able to to the satisfaction of 
the client organizations that I have heard from. Again, we have client 
organizations, I understand, on both sides. But when there is 
confusion, we should not disrupt the system, we should let that be 
separate. Vocational rehabilitation is too important to have it lumped 
in with the general population. Let us keep that emphasis for 
vocational rehab for those clients who need it.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude by saying 
that I have a very strong interest in this particular area. I began my 
career here in Congress more than 30 years ago serving on the then 
Committee on Education and Labor and being actively involved in the 
creation of some of these programs. I share the views that have been 
expressed here that when you have a good program that is working 
effectively, you should not try and make too many changes in it. I hope 
that I will be able to support this bill as we bring it to final 
passage. My ability to do that, of course, would be greatly assisted if 
we could also adopt this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 231, 
noes 192, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 670]

                               AYES--231

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blute
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Buyer
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waldholtz
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--192

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Brown (FL)
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Jefferson
     Moakley
     Oberstar
     Reynolds
     Sisisky
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Walsh

                              {time}  1720

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:


[[Page H9214]]

       Mr. Moakley for, with Mr. Fields of Texas against.

  Mr. BAKER of California changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. FORBES, ENSIGN, HORN, DINGELL, WATTS of Oklahoma, and BARTON 
of Texas changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote Nos. 664, 665, 
666, 667, 668, 669, and 670 I was unavoidably detained in my district. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on 664, ``aye'' on 665, 
``aye'' on 666, ``no'' on 667, ``aye'' on 668, ``no'' on 669, and 
``aye'' on 670.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 670 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present in the Chamber, I would have noted ``aye'' 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title V?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title VI.
  The text of title VI is as follows:
                TITLE VI--HIGHER EDUCATION PRIVATIZATION

     SEC. 601. REORGANIZATION OF THE STUDENT LOAN MARKETING 
                   ASSOCIATION THROUGH THE FORMATION OF A HOLDING 
                   COMPANY.

       (a) Amendment.--Part B of title IV of the Higher Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1071 et seq.) is amended by inserting 
     after section 439 (20 U.S.C. 1087-2) the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 440. REORGANIZATION OF THE STUDENT LOAN MARKETING 
                   ASSOCIATION THROUGH THE FORMATION OF A HOLDING 
                   COMPANY.

       ``(a) Actions by the Association's Board of Directors.--The 
     Board of Directors of the Association shall take or cause to 
     be taken all such action as it deems necessary or appropriate 
     to effect, upon the shareholder approval described in 
     subsection (b), a restructuring of the common stock ownership 
     of the Association, as set forth in a plan of reorganization 
     adopted by the Board of Directors (the terms of which shall 
     be consistent with this Act) so that all of the outstanding 
     common shares shall be directly owned by an ordinary business 
     corporation chartered under State or District of Columbia law 
     (the `Holding Company'), as the Board of Directors may 
     determine. Such actions may include, in the Board's 
     discretion, a merger of a wholly owned subsidiary of the 
     Holding Company with and into the Association, which would 
     have the effect provided in the plan of reorganization and 
     the law of the jurisdiction in which such subsidiary is 
     incorporated. As part of the restructuring, the Board of 
     Directors may cause (1) the common shares of the Association 
     to be converted, at the reorganization effective date, to 
     common shares of the Holding Company on a one for one basis, 
     consistent with applicable State or District of Columbia law, 
     and (2) Holding Company common shares to be registered with 
     the Securities and Exchange Commission.
       ``(b) Shareholder Approval.--The plan of reorganization 
     adopted by the Board of Directors pursuant to subsection (a) 
     shall be submitted to common stockholders of the Association 
     for their approval. The reorganization shall occur at the 
     reorganization effective date, provided that the plan of 
     reorganization has been approved by the affirmative votes, 
     cast in person or by proxy, of the holders of a majority of 
     the issued and outstanding shares of the Association common 
     stock.
       ``(c) Transition.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as specifically provided in this 
     section, until the dissolution date the Association shall 
     continue to have all of the rights, privileges and 
     obligations set forth in, and shall be subject to all of the 
     limitations and restrictions of, section 439 of this Act as 
     in effect on the effective date of this section, and the 
     Association shall continue to carry out the purposes of such 
     section. The Holding Company and its affiliates other than 
     the Association shall not be entitled to any of the rights, 
     privileges and obligations, and shall not be subject to the 
     limitations and restrictions, applicable to the Association 
     under section 439 of this Act as in effect on the effective 
     date of this section, except as specifically provided in this 
     section. The Holding Company and its subsidiaries (other than 
     the Association) shall not purchase loans insured under this 
     Act until such time as the Association ceases acquiring such 
     loans, except that the Association shall continue to acquire 
     loans as a lender of last resort pursuant to section 439(q) 
     of this Act or under an agreement with the Secretary 
     described in section 440(c)(6).
       ``(2) Transfer of certain property.--Except as specifically 
     provided in this section, at the reorganization effective 
     date or as soon as practicable thereafter, the Association 
     shall use its best efforts to transfer to the Holding Company 
     or its subsidiaries (or both), in each case, as directed by 
     the Holding Company, all real and personal property of the 
     Association (both tangible and intangible) other than the 
     remaining property. Without limiting the preceding sentence, 
     such transferred property shall include all right, title and 
     interest in (A) direct or indirect subsidiaries of the 
     Association (excluding any interest in any government 
     sponsored enterprise), (B) contracts, leases, and other 
     agreements, (C) licenses and other intellectual property, and 
     (D) any other property of the Association. Notwithstanding 
     the preceding provisions of this paragraph, nothing in this 
     paragraph shall be construed to prohibit the Association from 
     transferring remaining property from time to time to the 
     Holding Company or its subsidiaries, subject to the 
     provisions of paragraph (4).
       ``(3) Transfer of personnel.--At the reorganization 
     effective date, employees of the Association shall become 
     employees of the Holding Company (or of the subsidiaries), 
     and the Holding Company (or the subsidiaries or both) shall 
     provide all necessary and appropriate management and 
     operational support (including loan servicing) to the 
     Association, as requested by the Association. The Association 
     may, however, obtain such management and operational support 
     from other persons or entities.
       ``(4) Dividends.--The Association may pay dividends in the 
     form of cash or noncash distributions so long as at the time 
     of the declaration of such dividends, after giving effect to 
     the payment of such dividends as of the date of such 
     declaration by the Board of Directors of the Association, the 
     Association's capital would be in compliance with the capital 
     standards set forth in section 439(r) of this Act. If, at any 
     time after the reorganization effective date, the Association 
     fails to comply with such capital standards, the Holding 
     Company shall be obligated to transfer to the Association 
     additional capital in such amounts as are necessary to ensure 
     that the Association again complies with the capital 
     standards.
       ``(5) Valuation of noncash distributions.--After the 
     reorganization effective date, any distribution of noncash 
     assets by the Association to the Holding Company shall be 
     valued at book value on the date the Association's Board of 
     Directors approved such distribution for purposes of 
     calculating compliance with section 439(r) of this Act.
       ``(6) Restrictions on new business activity or acquisition 
     of assets by association.--After the reorganization effective 
     date, the Association shall not engage in any new business 
     activities or acquire any additional program assets described 
     in section 439(d) of the Act other than--
       ``(A) in connection with (i) student loan purchases through 
     September 30, 2003, and (ii) contractual commitments for 
     future warehousing advances or pursuant to letters of credit 
     or standby bond purchase agreements which are outstanding as 
     of the reorganization effective date;
       ``(B) in connection with its serving as a lender-of-last-
     resort pursuant to section 439 of this Act; and
       ``(C) in connection with its purchase of loans insured 
     under this part, if the Secretary, with the approval of the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, enters into an agreement with the 
     Association for the continuation or resumption of its 
     secondary market purchase program because the Secretary 
     determines there is inadequate liquidity for loans made under 
     this part.

     The Secretary is authorized to enter into an agreement 
     described in subparagraph (C) with the Association covering 
     such secondary market activities.
     Any agreement entered into under subparagraph (C) shall cover 
     a period of 12 months, but may be renewed if the Secretary 
     determines that liquidity remains inadequate. The fee 
     provided under section 439(h)(7) shall not apply to loans 
     acquired under any such agreement with the Secretary.
       ``(7) Issuance of debt obligations during the transition 
     period; attributes of debt obligations.--After the 
     reorganization effective date, the Association shall not 
     issue debt obligations which mature later than September 30, 
     2007, except in connection with serving as a lender-of-last-
     resort pursuant to section 439 of this Act or with purchasing 
     loans under an agreement with the Secretary as described in 
     paragraph (6) of this subsection. Nothing in this subsection 
     shall modify the attributes accorded the debt obligations of 
     the Association by section 439, regardless of whether such 
     debt obligations are incurred prior to, or at any time 
     following, the reorganization effective date or are 
     transferred to a trust in accordance with subsection (d).
       ``(8) Monitoring of safety and soundness.--
       ``(A) Obligation to obtain, maintain, and report 
     information.--The Association shall obtain such information 
     and make and keep such records as the Secretary of the 
     Treasury may from time to time prescribe concerning (i) the 
     financial risk to the Association resulting from the 
     activities of any of its associated persons, to the extent 
     such activities are reasonably likely to have a material 
     impact on the financial condition of the Association, 
     including its capital ratio, its liquidity, or its ability to 
     conduct and finance its operations, and (ii) the 
     Association's policies, procedures, and systems for 
     monitoring and controlling any such financial risk. The 
     Association's obligations under this subsection with respect 
     to any associated person which is a third party servicer (as 
     defined in 34 C.F.R. 682.200(b)) shall be limited to 
     providing to the Secretary of the Treasury copies of any 
     reports 

[[Page H9215]]

     or other information provided to the Secretary of Education 
     pursuant to 34 C.F.R. 682.200 et seq. The Secretary of the 
     Treasury may require summary reports of such information to 
     be filed no more frequently than quarterly. For purposes of 
     this paragraph, the term `associated person' shall mean any 
     person, other than a natural person, directly or indirectly 
     controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the 
     Association.
       ``(B) Separate operation of corporations.--
       ``(i) The funds and assets of the Association shall at all 
     times be maintained separately from the funds and assets of 
     the Holding Company or any of its other subsidiaries and may 
     be used solely by the Association to carry out its purposes 
     and to fulfill its obligations.
       ``(ii) The Association shall maintain books and records 
     that clearly reflect the assets and liabilities of the 
     Association, separate from the assets and liabilities of the 
     Holding Company or any of its other subsidiaries.
       ``(iii) The Association shall maintain a corporate office 
     that is physically separate from any office of the Holding 
     Company or any of its subsidiaries.
       ``(iv) No director of the Association that is appointed by 
     the President pursuant to section 439(c)(1)(A) may serve as a 
     director of the Holding Company.
       ``(v) At least one officer of the Association shall remain 
     an officer solely of the Association.
       ``(vi) Transactions between the Association and the Holding 
     Company or its other subsidiaries, including any loan 
     servicing arrangements, shall be on terms no less favorable 
     to the Association than the Association could obtain from an 
     unrelated third party offering comparable services.
       ``(vii) The Association shall not extend credit to the 
     Holding Company or any of its affiliates, nor guarantee or 
     provide any credit enhancement to any debt obligations of the 
     Holding Company or any of its affiliates.
       ``(viii) Any amounts collected on behalf of the Association 
     by the Holding Company or any of its other subsidiaries with 
     respect to the assets of the Association, pursuant to a 
     servicing contract or other arrangement between the 
     Association and the Holding Company or any of its other 
     direct or indirect subsidiaries, shall be collected solely 
     for the benefit of the Association and shall be immediately 
     deposited by the Holding Company or such other subsidiary to 
     an account under the sole control of the Association.
       ``(C) Encumbrance of assets.--Notwithstanding any otherwise 
     applicable Federal or State law, rule, or regulation, or 
     legal or equitable principle, doctrine, or theory to the 
     contrary, under no circumstances shall the assets of the 
     Association be available or used to pay claims or debts of or 
     incurred by the Holding Company. Nothing in this subparagraph 
     shall limit the right of the Association to pay dividends not 
     otherwise prohibited hereunder or limit any liability of the 
     Holding Company explicitly provided for in this part.
       ``(D) Holding company activities.--After the reorganization 
     effective date and prior to the dissolution of the 
     Association in accordance with section 440(d), Holding 
     Company activities shall be limited to ownership of the 
     Association and any other subsidiaries. All business 
     activities shall be conducted through subsidiaries.
       ``(9) Association board of directors.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of part B of this title, after the 
     reorganization effective date, the 14 directors of the 
     Association elected by the Association's stockholders (which 
     immediately after the reorganization effective date shall be 
     the Holding Company) shall no longer be required to meet the 
     eligibility requirements set forth in section 439(c).
       ``(10) Issuance of stock warrants.--At the reorganization 
     effective date, the Holding Company shall issue to the 
     Secretary of the Treasury 200,000 stock warrants, each 
     entitling the holder of the stock warrant to purchase from 
     the Holding Company one share of the registered common stock 
     of the Holding Company at any time on or before September 30, 
     2007. The exercise price for such warrants shall be an amount 
     equal to the average closing price of the common stock of the 
     Association for the 20 business days prior to and including 
     the date of enactment of this section on the exchange or 
     market which is then the primary exchange or market for the 
     common stock of the Association, subject to any adjustments 
     necessary to reflect the conversion of Association common 
     stock into Holding Company common stock as part of the plan 
     of reorganization approved by the Association's shareholders.
       ``(11) Restrictions on transfer of association shares and 
     bankruptcy of association.--After the reorganization 
     effective date, the Holding Company shall not sell, pledge, 
     or otherwise transfer the outstanding shares of the 
     Association, or agree to or cause the liquidation of the 
     Association or cause the Association to file a petition for 
     bankruptcy under title 11, United States Code, without prior 
     approval of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary 
     of Education.
       ``(d) Termination of the Association.--The Association 
     shall dissolve, and its separate existence shall terminate on 
     September 30, 2007, after discharge of all outstanding debt 
     obligations and liquidation pursuant to this subsection. The 
     Association may dissolve pursuant to this subsection prior to 
     such date by notifying the Secretary of Education and the 
     Secretary of the Treasury of its intention to dissolve, 
     unless within 60 days of receipt of such notice the Secretary 
     of Education notifies the Association that it continues to be 
     needed to serve as a lender of last resort pursuant to 
     section 439(q) of this Act or continues to be needed to 
     purchase loans under an agreement with the Secretary 
     described in subsection (c)(6) of this section. On the 
     dissolution date, the Association shall take the following 
     actions:
       ``(1) Establishment of a trust.--The Association shall, 
     under the terms of an irrevocable trust agreement in form and 
     substance satisfactory to the Secretary of the Treasury, the 
     Association and the appointed trustee, irrevocably transfer 
     all remaining obligations of the Association to the trust and 
     irrevocably deposit or cause to be deposited into such trust, 
     to be held as trust funds solely for the benefit of holders 
     of the remaining obligations, money or direct noncallable 
     obligations of the United States of America or any agency 
     thereof for which payment the full faith and credit of the 
     United States is pledged, maturing as to principal and 
     interest in such amounts and at such times as are determined 
     by the Secretary of the Treasury to be sufficient, without 
     consideration of any significant reinvestment of such 
     interest, to pay the principal of, and interest on, the 
     remaining obligations in accordance with their terms. To the 
     extent the Association cannot provide money or qualifying 
     obligations in the amount required, the Holding Company shall 
     be required to transfer money or qualifying obligations to 
     the trust in the amount necessary to prevent any deficiency.
       ``(2) Use of trust assets.--All money, obligations, or 
     financial assets deposited into the trust pursuant to this 
     subsection shall be applied by the trustee to the payment of 
     the remaining obligations assumed by the trust. Upon the 
     fulfillment of the trustee's duties under the trust, any 
     remaining assets of the trust shall be transferred to the 
     Holding Company or its subsidiaries, or both, as directed by 
     the Holding Company.
       ``(3) Obligations not transferred to the trust.--The 
     Association shall make proper provision for all other 
     obligations of the Association, including the repurchase or 
     redemption, or the making of proper provision for the 
     repurchase or redemption, of any preferred stock of the 
     Association then outstanding. Any obligations of the 
     Association which cannot be fully satisfied shall become 
     liabilities of the Holding Company as of the date of 
     dissolution.
       ``(4) Transfer of remaining assets.--After compliance with 
     paragraphs (1), and (3), the Association shall transfer to 
     the Holding Company any remaining assets of the Association.
       ``(e) Operation of the Holding Company.--
       ``(1) Holding company board of directors.--The number and 
     composition of the Board of Directors of the Holding Company 
     shall be determined as set forth in the Holding Company's 
     charter or like instrument (as amended from time to time) or 
     bylaws (as amended from time to time) and as permissible 
     under the laws of the jurisdiction of its incorporation.
       ``(2) Holding company name.--The names of the Holding 
     Company and any subsidiary of the Holding Company other than 
     the Association--
       ``(A) may not contain the name `Student Loan Marketing 
     Association'; and
       ``(B) may contain, to the extent permitted by applicable 
     State or District of Columbia law, `Sallie Mae', or 
     variations thereof or such other names as the Board of 
     Directors of the Association of the Holding Company shall 
     deem appropriate.
       ``(3) Use of sallie mae name.--Without limiting paragraph 
     (2), the Association may assign to the Holding Company, or 
     any other subsidiary of the Holding Company, the `Sallie Mae' 
     name as a trademark and service mark, except that neither the 
     Holding Company nor any subsidiary of the Holding Company 
     other than the Association or a subsidiary of the Association 
     may use the `Sallie Mae' name on, or to identify the issuer 
     of, any debt obligation or other security offered or sold by 
     the Holding Company or any such subsidiary. The Association 
     shall remit to the Secretary of Treasury $5,000,000 during 
     fiscal year 1996 as compensation for the right to assign such 
     trademark or service mark.
       ``(4) Disclosure required.--Until 3 years after the 
     dissolution date, the Holding Company, and any subsidiary of 
     the Holding Company other than the Association, shall 
     prominently display--
       ``(A) in any document offering its securities, that the 
     obligations of the Holding Company and any such subsidiary 
     are not guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the United 
     States; and
       ``(B) in any advertisement or promotional materials which 
     use the `Sallie Mae' name or mark, a statement that neither 
     the Holding Company nor any such subsidiary is a Government-
     sponsored enterprise or instrumentality of the United States.
       ``(f) Strict Construction.--Except as specifically set 
     forth in this section, nothing contained in this section 
     shall be construed to limit the authority of the Association 
     as a federally chartered corporation, or of the Holding 
     Company as a State or District of Columbia chartered 
     corporation.
       ``(g) Right To Enforce.--The Secretary of Education or the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, as appropriate, may request the 
     Attorney General of the United States to bring an action in 
     the United States District Court for the District of Columbia 
     for the enforcement 

[[Page H9216]]
     of any provisions of this section, or may, under the direction or 
     control of the Attorney General, bring such an action. Such 
     court shall have jurisdiction and power to order and require 
     compliance with this section.
       ``(h) Deadline for Reorganization Effective Date.--This 
     section shall be of no further force and effect in the event 
     that the reorganization effective date does not occur on or 
     before 18 months after the date of enactment of this section.
       ``(i) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       ``(1) The term `Association' means the Student Loan 
     Marketing Association.
       ``(2) The term `dissolution date' shall mean September 30, 
     2007, or such earlier date as the Secretary of Education 
     permits the transfer of remaining obligations in accordance 
     with subsection (d) of this section.
       ``(3) The term `reorganization effective date' means the 
     effective date of the reorganization as determined by the 
     Board of Directors of the Association, which shall not be 
     earlier than the date that stockholder approval is obtained 
     pursuant to subsection (b) of this section and shall not be 
     later than the date that is 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this section.
       ``(4) The term `Holding Company' means the new business 
     corporation formed pursuant to this section by the 
     Association under the laws of any State of the United States 
     or the District of Columbia.
       ``(5) The term `remaining obligations' shall mean the debt 
     obligations of the Association outstanding as of the 
     dissolution date.
       ``(6) The term `remaining property' shall mean the 
     following assets and liabilities of the Association which are 
     outstanding as of the reorganization effective date: (A) debt 
     obligations issued by the Association, (B) contracts relating 
     to interest rate, currency, or commodity positions or 
     protections, (C) investment securities owned by the 
     Association, (D) any instruments, assets, or agreements 
     described in section 439(d) of this Act (including without 
     limitation all student loans, forward purchase and lending 
     commitments, warehousing advances, academic facilities 
     obligations, letters of credit, standby bond purchase 
     agreements, liquidity agreements, and student loan revenue 
     bonds or other loans), and (E) except as specifically 
     prohibited by this Act, any other nonmaterial assets or 
     liabilities of the Association which the Association's Board 
     of Directors determines to be necessary or appropriate to its 
     operations.
       ``(7) The term `reorganization' means the restructuring 
     event or events (including any merger event) giving effect to 
     the holding company structure described in subsection (a) of 
     this section.
       ``(8) The term `subsidiary' or `subsidiaries' shall mean 
     one or more direct or indirect subsidiaries of the Holding 
     Company.''.
       (b) Technical Amendments.--
       (1) Amendments to the higher education act.--Effective on 
     the reorganization effective date (as defined in section 
     440(h)(3) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as added by 
     subsection (a))--
       (A) section 435(d)(1)(F) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 
     1085(d)(1)(F)) is amended by inserting after ``Student Loan 
     Marketing Association'' the following: ``or the Holding 
     Company of the Student Loan Marketing Association, including 
     all subsidiaries of such Holding Company, created pursuant to 
     section 440 of this Act,''; and
       (B) sections 435(d)(1)(G) and 428C(a)(1)(A) of such Act (20 
     U.S.C. 1085(d)(1)(G); 1078-3(a)(1)(A)) are each amended by 
     inserting after ``Student Loan Marketing Association'' the 
     following: ``or the Holding Company of the Student Loan 
     Marketing Association, including all subsidiaries of such 
     Holding Company, created pursuant to section 440 of this 
     Act''.
       (2) Enforcement of safety and soundness requirements.--
     Section 439(r) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1087-2(r)) is amended--
       (A) by redesignating paragraph (13) as paragraph (15); and
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (12) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(13) Enforcement of safety and soundness requirements.--
     The Secretary of Education or the Secretary of the Treasury, 
     as appropriate, may request the Attorney General of the 
     United States to bring an action in the United States 
     District Court for the District of Columbia for the 
     enforcement of any provisions of this subsection, or may, 
     under the direction or control of the Attorney General, bring 
     such an action. Such court shall have jurisdiction and power 
     to order and require compliance with this subsection.''.
       (3) Capital ratio amendments.--Section 439(r) of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 is further amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
       (ii) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B) 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) within 45 days of the end of each fiscal quarter, (i) 
     financial statements of the Association, and (ii) a report 
     setting forth the calculation of the capital ratio of the 
     Association.'';
       (B) in paragraph (11), by striking ``paragraphs (4) and 
     (6)(A)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (4), (6)(A), and (14)''; 
     and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (13) (as added by 
     paragraph (2) of this subsection) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(14) Actions by secretary.--If the shareholders of the 
     Association shall have approved a reorganization plan in 
     accordance with section 440(b) and, for any fiscal quarter 
     ended after January 1, 2000, the Association shall have a 
     capital ratio of less than 2.25 percent, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury may, until such capital ratio is met, take any one 
     or more of the actions described in paragraph (7), except 
     that--
       ``(A) the capital ratio to be restored pursuant to 
     paragraph (7)(D) shall be 2.25 percent; and
       ``(B) if the relevant capital ratio is in excess of or 
     equal to 2 percent for such quarter, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall defer taking any of the actions set forth in 
     paragraph (7) until the next succeeding quarter and may then 
     proceed with any such action only if the capital ratio of the 
     Association remains below 2.25 percent.

     Upon approval by the shareholders of the Association of a 
     reorganization plan in accordance with section 440(b) for any 
     period after January 1, 2000, the provisions of paragraphs 
     (4), (5), (6), (8), (9), and (10) shall be of no further 
     application to the Association.''.
       (4) Repeal of the association's charter.--Effective on the 
     dissolution date (as defined in section 440(h)(2) of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965, as added by subsection (a)), 
     section 439 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 1087-2) is repealed.

     SEC. 602. PRIVATIZATION OF COLLEGE CONSTRUCTION LOAN 
                   INSURANCE ASSOCIATION.

       (a) Repeal of Statutory Restrictions.--Part D of title VII 
     of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1132f et seq.) 
     is repealed.
       (b) Status of the Corporation.--
       (1) Status of the corporation.--The Corporation shall not 
     be an agency, instrumentality, or establishment of the United 
     States Government and shall not be a ``Government 
     corporation'' nor a ``Government controlled corporation'' as 
     defined in section 103 of title 5, United States Code. No 
     action under section 1491 of title 28, United States Code 
     (commonly known as the Tucker Act) shall be allowable against 
     the United States based on the actions of the Corporation.
       (2) Corporate powers.--The Corporation shall have the power 
     to engage in any business or other activities for which 
     corporations may be organized under the laws of any State of 
     the United States or the District of Columbia. The 
     Corporation shall have the power to enter into contracts, to 
     execute instruments, to incur liabilities, to provide 
     products and services, and to do all things as are necessary 
     or incidental to the proper management of its affairs and the 
     efficient operation of a private, for-profit business.
       (c) Related Privatization Requirements.--
       (1) Notice requirements.--During the 5-year period 
     following the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Corporation shall include in any document offering the 
     Corporation's securities, in any contracts for insurance, 
     guarantee, or reinsurance of obligations, and in any 
     advertisement or promotional material, a statement that--
       (A) the Corporation is not a Government-sponsored 
     enterprise or instrumentality of the United States; and
       (B) the Corporation's obligations are not guaranteed by the 
     full faith and credit of the United States.
       (2) Corporate charter.--The Corporation's charter shall be 
     amended as necessary and without delay to conform the 
     requirements of this Act.
       (3) Corporate name.--The name of the Corporation, or of any 
     direct or indirect subsidiary thereof, may not contain the 
     term ``College Construction Loan Insurance Association''.
       (4) Articles of incorporation.--The Corporation shall amend 
     its articles of incorporation without delay to reflect that 
     one of the purposes of the Corporation shall be to guarantee, 
     insure and reinsure bonds, leases, and other evidences of 
     debt of educational institutions, including Historically 
     Black Colleges and Universities and other academic 
     institutions which are ranked in the lower investment grade 
     category using a nationally recognized credit rating system.
       (5) Transition requirements.--
       (A) Requirements until stock sale.--Notwithstanding 
     subsection (a), the requirements of section 754 of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1132f-3), as in existence as 
     of the day before enactment of this Act, shall continue to be 
     effective until the day immediately following the date of 
     closing of the purchase of the Secretary's stock (or the date 
     of closing of the final purchase, in the case of multiple 
     transactions) pursuant to subsection (d) of this section.
       (B) Reports after stock sale.--The Corporation shall, not 
     later than March 30 of the first full calendar year 
     immediately following the sale pursuant to subsection (d), 
     and each of the 2 succeeding years, submit to the Secretary 
     of Education a report describing the Corporation's efforts to 
     assist in the financing of education facilities projects, 
     including projects for elementary, secondary, and 
     postsecondary educational institution infrastructure, and 
     detailing, on a project-by-project basis, the Corporation's 
     business dealings with educational institutions that are 
     rated by a nationally recognized statistical rating 
     organization at or below the organization's third highest 
     ratings.
       (d) Sale of Federally Owned Stock.--

[[Page H9217]]

       (1) Sale of stock required.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall, upon the request of the Secretary of Education make 
     every effort to sell, pursuant to section 324 of title 31, 
     United States Code, the voting common stock of the 
     Corporation owned by the Secretary of Education not later 
     than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Purchase by the corporation.--In the event that the 
     Secretary of the Treasury is unable to sell the voting common 
     stock, or any portion thereof, at a price acceptable to the 
     Secretary of Education and the Secretary of the Treasury 
     within the period specified in paragraph (1), the Corporation 
     shall purchase such stock at a price determined by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury and acceptable to the Corporation 
     based on independent appraisal by one or more nationally 
     recognized financial firms. Such firms shall be selected by 
     the Secretary of the Treasury in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Education and the Corporation.
       (e) Assistance by the Corporation.--The Corporation shall 
     provide such assistance as the Secretary of the Treasury and 
     the Secretary of Education may require to facilitate the sale 
     of the stock under this section.
       (f) Definition.--As used in this section, the term 
     ``Corporation'' means the Corporation established pursuant to 
     the provision of law repealed by subsection (a).
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title VI?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title VII.
  The text of title VII is as follows:
               TITLE VII--REPEALERS AND OTHER AMENDMENTS

     SEC. 701. HIGHER EDUCATION PROVISIONS.

       (a) Higher Education Act of 1965 Provisions.--The following 
     provisions of the Higher Education Act of 1965 are repealed:
       (1) Part B of title I (20 U.S.C. 1011 et seq.), relating to 
     articulation agreements.
       (2) Part C of title I (20 U.S.C. 1015 et seq.), relating to 
     access and equity to education for all Americans through 
     telecommunications.
       (3) Title II (20 U.S.C. 1021 et seq.), relating to academic 
     libraries and information services.
       (4) Chapter 2 of subpart 2 of part A of title IV (20 U.S.C. 
     1070a-21 et seq.), relating to national early intervention 
     scholarships.
       (5) Chapter 3 of subpart 2 of part A of title IV (20 U.S.C. 
     1070a-31 et seq.), relating to presidential access 
     scholarships.
       (6) Chapter 4 of subpart 2 of part A of title IV (20 U.S.C. 
     1070a-41 et seq.), relating to model program community 
     partnerships and counseling grants.
       (7) Chapter 5 of subpart 2 of part A of title IV (20 U.S.C. 
     1070a-52 et seq.), relating to an early awareness information 
     program.
       (8) Chapter 8 of subpart 2 of part A of title IV (20 U.S.C. 
     1070a-81), relating to technical assistance for teachers and 
     counselors.
       (9) Subpart 8 of part A of title IV (20 U.S.C. 1070f), 
     relating to special child care services for disadvantaged 
     college students.
       (10) Section 428J (20 U.S.C. 1078-10), relating to loan 
     forgiveness for teachers, individuals performing national 
     community service and nurses.
       (11) Section 486 (20 U.S.C. 1093), relating to training in 
     financial aid services.
       (12) Subpart 1 of part H of title IV (20 U.S.C. 1099a et 
     seq.) relating to State postsecondary review entity programs.
       (13) Part A of title V (20 U.S.C. 1102 et seq.), relating 
     to State and local programs for teacher excellence.
       (14) Part B of title V (20 U.S.C. 1103 et seq.), relating 
     to national teacher academies.
       (15) Subpart 1 of part C of title V (20 U.S.C. 1104 et 
     seq.), relating to Douglas teacher scholarships.
       (16) Subpart 3 of part C of title V (20 U.S.C. 1106 et 
     seq.), relating to the teacher corps.
       (17) Subpart 3 of part D of title V (20 U.S.C. 1109 et 
     seq.), relating to class size demonstration grants.
       (18) Subpart 4 of part D of title V (20 U.S.C. 1110 et 
     seq.), relating to middle school teaching demonstration 
     programs.
       (19) Subpart 1 of part E of title V (20 U.S.C. 1111 et 
     seq.), relating to new teaching careers.
       (20) Subpart 1 of part F of title V (20 U.S.C. 1113 et 
     seq.), relating to the national mini corps programs.
       (21) Section 586 (20 U.S.C. 1114), relating to 
     demonstration grants for critical language and area studies.
       (22) Section 587 (20 U.S.C. 1114a), relating to development 
     of foreign languages and cultures instructional materials.
       (23) Subpart 3 of part F of title V (20 U.S.C. 1115), 
     relating to small State teaching initiatives.
       (24) Subpart 4 of part F of title V (20 U.S.C. 1116), 
     relating to faculty development grants.
       (25) Section 597 and section 599(b) (20 U.S.C. 1117a, 
     1117c(b)), relating to early childhood staff training and 
     professional enhancement.
       (26) Section 605 (20 U.S.C. 1124a), relating to intensive 
     summer language institutes.
       (27) Section 607 (20 U.S.C. 1125a), relating to foreign 
     language periodicals.
       (28) Part A of title VII (20 U.S.C. 11326 et seq.), 
     relating to academic and library facilities.
       (29) Title VIII (20 U.S.C. 1133 et seq.), relating to 
     cooperative education programs.
       (30) Part A of title IX (20 U.S.C. 1134a et seq.), relating 
     to women and minority participation in graduate education.
       (31) Part B of title IX (20 U.S.C. 1134d et seq.), relating 
     to Harris fellowships.
       (32) Part C of title IX (20 U.S.C. 1134h et seq.), relating 
     to Javits fellowships.
       (33) Part E of title IX (20 U.S.C. 1134r et seq.), relating 
     to the faculty development fellowship program.
       (34) Part F of title IX (20 U.S.C. 1134s et seq.), relating 
     to legal training for the disadvantaged.
       (35) Part G of title IX (20 U.S.C. 1134u et seq.), relating 
     to law school clinical programs.
       (36) Section 1011 (20 U.S.C. 1135a-11), relating to special 
     projects in areas of national need.
       (37) Subpart 2 of part B of title X (20 U.S.C. 1135c et 
     seq.), relating to science and engineering access programs.
       (38) Part C of title X (20 U.S.C. 1135e et seq.), relating 
     to women and minorities science and engineering outreach 
     demonstration programs.
       (39) Part D of title X (20 U.S.C. 1135f), relating to 
     Eisenhower leadership programs.
       (40) Title XI (20 U.S.C. 1136 et seq.), relating to 
     community service programs.
       (b) Education Amendments of 1986 Provisions.--The following 
     provisions of the Higher Education Amendments of 1986 are 
     repealed:
       (1) Part E of title XIII (20 U.S.C. 1221-1 note), relating 
     to a National Academy of Science study.
       (2) Part B of title XV (20 U.S.C. 4441 et seq.), relating 
     to Native Hawaiian culture and art development.
       (c) Education Amendments of 1992 Provisions.--The following 
     provisions of the Higher Education Amendments of 1992 are 
     repealed:
       (1) Part F of title XIII (25 U.S.C. 3351 et seq.), relating 
     to American Indian postsecondary economic development 
     scholarships.
       (2) Part G of title XIII (25 U.S.C. 3371), relating to 
     American Indian teacher training.
       (3) Section 1406 (20 U.S.C. 1221e-1 note), relating to a 
     national survey of factors associated with participation.
       (4) Section 1409 (20 U.S.C. 1132a note), relating to a 
     study of environmental hazards in institutions of higher 
     education.
       (5) Section 1412 (20 U.S.C. 1101 note), relating to a 
     national job bank for teacher recruitment.
       (6) Part B of title XV (20 U.S.C. 1452 note), relating to a 
     national clearinghouse for postsecondary education materials.
       (7) Part C of title XV (20 U.S.C. 1101 note), relating to 
     school-based decisionmakers.
       (8) Part D of title XV (20 U.S.C. 1145h note), relating to 
     grants for sexual offenses education.
       (9) Part E of title XV (20 U.S.C. 1070 note), relating to 
     Olympic scholarships.
       (10) Part G of title XV (20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 note), relating 
     to advanced placement fee payment programs.
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--The Higher Education Act of 
     1965 is amended--
       (1) in section 453(c)(2)--
       (A) by striking subparagraph (E); and
       (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (F) through (H) as 
     subparagraphs (E) through (G), respectively;
       (2) in section 487(a)(3), by striking subparagraph (B) and 
     redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as subparagraphs (B) 
     and (C), respectively;
       (3) in section 487(a)(15), by striking ``the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs, and State review entities under subpart 1 
     of part H'' and inserting ``and the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs'';
       (4) in section 487(a)(21), by striking ``, State 
     postsecondary review entities,'';
       (5) in section 487(c)(1)(A)(i), by striking ``State 
     agencies, and the State review entities referred to in 
     subpart 1 of part H'' and inserting ``and State agencies'';
       (6) in section 487(c)(4), by striking ``, after 
     consultation with each State review entity designated under 
     subpart 1 of part H,'';
       (7) in section 487(c)(5), by striking ``State review 
     entities designated under subpart 1 of part H,'';
       (8) in section 496(a)(7), by striking ``and the appropriate 
     State postsecondary review entity'';
       (9) in section 496(a)(8), by striking ``and the State 
     postsecondary review entity of the State in which the 
     institution of higher education is located'';
       (10) in section 498(g)(2), by striking everything after the 
     first sentence;
       (11) in section 498A(a)(2)(D), by striking ``by the 
     appropriate State postsecondary review entity designated 
     under subpart 1 of this part or'';
       (12) in section 498A(a)(2)--
       (A) by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of 
     subparagraph (E);
       (B) by striking subparagraph (F); and
       (C) by redesignating subparagraph (G) as subparagraph (F); 
     and
       (13) in section 498A(a)(3)--
       (A) by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of 
     subparagraph (C);
       (B) by striking ``; and'' at the end of subparagraph (D) 
     and inserting a period; and
       (C) by striking subparagraph (E).

     SEC. 702. ELIGIBLE INSTITUTION.

       (a) Amendments.--Section 481(b) of the Higher Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1088(b)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting before the period at the end of the first 
     sentence the following: ``on the basis of a review by the 
     institution's independent auditor using generally accepted 
     accounting principles'';
       (2) by inserting after the end of such first sentence the 
     following new sentences: ``For 

[[Page H9218]]
     the purposes of clause (6), revenues from sources that are not derived 
     from funds provided under this title include revenues from 
     programs of education or training that do not meet the 
     definition of an eligible program in subsection (e), but are 
     provided on a contractual basis under Federal, State, or 
     local training programs, or to business and industry. For the 
     purposes of determining whether an institution meets the 
     requirements of clause (6), the Secretary shall not consider 
     the financial information of any institution for a fiscal 
     year began on or before April 30, 1994.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--Notwithstanding section 713 of this 
     Act, the amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply to any 
     determination made on or after July 1, 1994, by the Secretary 
     of Education pursuant to section 481(b)(6) of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965.

     SEC. 703. CARL D. PERKINS VOCATIONAL AND APPLIED TECHNOLOGY 
                   EDUCATION ACT.

       The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology 
     Education Act (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.) is repealed.

     SEC. 704. SMITH-HUGHES ACT.

       (a) Repeal.--The Smith-Hughes Act (39 Stat. 929 as amended 
     (20 U.S.C. 11-15, 16-28)) is repealed.
       (b) Effective Date.--Notwithstanding section 713 of this 
     Act, the repeal in subsection (a) of this section shall take 
     effect on October 1, 1995.

     SEC. 705. SCHOOL-TO-WORK OPPORTUNITIES ACT OF 1994.

        The School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 
     6101 et seq.) is repealed.

     SEC. 706. SCHOOL DROPOUT ASSISTANCE ACT.

       The School Dropout Assistance Act, (part C of title V of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (20 U.S.C. 7261)) 
     is repealed.

     SEC. 707. ADULT EDUCATION ACT.

       (a) In General.--The Adult Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1201 et 
     seq.) is repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Esea.--The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.) is amended--
       (A) in section 1202(c)(1), by striking ``the Adult 
     Education Act,'' and inserting ``title IV of the CAREERS 
     Act,'';
       (B) in section 1205(8)(B), by striking ``the Adult 
     Education Act,'' and inserting ``title IV of the CAREERS 
     Act,'';
       (C) in section 1206(a)(1)(A), by striking ``the Adult 
     Education Act;'' and inserting ``title IV of the CAREERS 
     Act;''; and
       (D) in section 9161(2), by striking ``section 312(2) of the 
     Adult Education Act.'' and inserting ``section 5 of the 
     CAREERS Act.''.
       (2) Technology for education act.--The Technology for 
     Education Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 6801 et seq.) is amended in 
     section 3113(1) by striking ``section 312 of the Adult 
     Education Act;'' and inserting ``section 5 of the CAREERS 
     Act;'';

     SEC. 708. NATIONAL LITERACY ACT.

       The National Literacy Act of 1991, except section 101 of 
     such Act, is repealed.

     SEC. 709. LIBRARY SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION ACT.

       (a) In General.--The Library Services and Construction Act 
     (20 U.S.C. 351 et seq.) is repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The Technology for Education Act 
     of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 6801 et seq.) is amended in section 
     3113(10) by striking ``section 3 of the Library Services and 
     Construction Act;'' and inserting ``section 5 of the CAREERS 
     Act;''.

     SEC. 710. TECHNOLOGY FOR EDUCATION ACT OF 1994.

       Part F of the Technology for Education Act of 1994 
     (contained in title III of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act (20 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.)) is repealed.

     SEC. 711. JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT.

       (a) In General.--The Job Training Partnership Act (29 
     U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), except section 1, sections 421 through 
     439 (relating to the Job Corps), and section 441 of such Act 
     (relating to veterans' employment programs), is hereby 
     repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Short title.--Section 1 of the Job Training Partnership 
     Act (29 U.S.C. 1501, note) is amended--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``; table of contents''; 
     and
       (B) by striking all that follows after ``Job Training 
     Partnership Act''.
       (2) Job corps.--Such Act (29 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), as 
     amended by this section, is further amended--
       (A) by redesignating sections 421 through 439 as sections 2 
     through 21, respectively;
       (B) in section 2 (as redesignated), by striking ``part'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``Act'';
       (C) in section 4(4) (as redesignated), by striking 
     ``sections 424 and 425'' and inserting ``sections 5 and 6'';
       (D) in section 5 (as redesignated)--
       (i) in subsection (a), by striking ``entities administering 
     programs under title II of this Act,''; and
       (ii) in subsection (b), by striking ``part'' and inserting 
     ``Act'';
       (E) in section 7 (as redesignated)--
       (i) in subsection (a), by striking ``section 428'' and 
     inserting ``section 9''; and
       (ii) by striking subsection (d);
       (F) in section 8 (as redesignated)--
       (i) by striking subsection (b); and
       (ii) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (b);
       (G) in section 14 (as redesignated)--
       (i) in subsection (a)(4), by striking ``part'' and 
     inserting ``Act'';
       (ii) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``and activities 
     authorized under sections 452 and 453''; and
       (iii) in subsection (e), by striking ``section 431'' and 
     inserting ``section 12'';
       (H) in section 15 (as redesignated)--
       (i) in subsection (a)--

       (I) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``section 427'' and inserting ``section 8''; and
       (II) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking ``section 428'' and 
     inserting ``section 9'';

       (ii) in subsection (c)(3), by striking ``section 423'' and 
     inserting ``section 4'';
       (iii) in subsection (d), by striking ``sections 424 and 
     425'' and inserting ``sections 5 and 6''; and
       (iv) in subsection (e), by striking ``, pursuant to section 
     452(d),'';
       (I) in section 17 (as redesignated), by striking ``purpose 
     of this part'' each place it appears and inserting ``purpose 
     of this Act'';
       (J) in section 20 (as redesignated), by striking ``part'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``Act''; and
       (K) in section 21 (as redesignated), by striking ``part'' 
     and inserting ``Act''.
       (3) Veterans' employment programs.--Such Act (29 U.S.C. 
     1501 et seq.), as amended by this section, is further 
     amended--
       (A) by redesignating section 441 as section 22;
       (B) by striking the heading of such section 22 (as 
     redesignated), and inserting the following:


                 ``VETERANS' EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS''; and

       (C) in such section 22, by striking ``part'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``section''.
       (4) Authorization of appropriations.--Such Act (29 U.S.C. 
     1501 et seq.), as amended by this section, is further amended 
     by adding at the end the following new section:


                   ``AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

       ``Sec. 23. There are authorized to be appropriated such 
     sums as are necessary to carry out this Act.''.

     SEC. 712. STEWART B. MCKINNEY HOMELESS ASSISTANCE ACT.

       (a) Adult Education.--
       (1) In general.--Subtitle A of title VII of the Stewart B. 
     McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11421 et seq.) is 
     repealed.
       (2) Table of contents.--The table of contents of such Act 
     is amended by striking the items relating to subtitle A of 
     title VII of such Act.
       (b) Subtitle C.--
       (1) In general.--Subtitle C of title VII of the Stewart B. 
     McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11441 et seq.), 
     except section 738, is hereby repealed.
       (2) Table of contents.--The table of contents of such Act 
     is amended--
       (A) by striking the item relating to subtitle C of title 
     VII of such Act; and
       (B) by striking the items relating to sections 731 through 
     737 and sections 739 through 741.

     SEC. 713. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The repeals and amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect on July 1, 1997, except for amendments to the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title VII?


                     amendment offered by mr. klink

  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 14 
printed in the Congressional Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Klink: Page 275, after line 4, 
     insert the following:

                     TITLE VIII--SENSE OF CONGRESS

     SEC. 801. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress, that:
       (1) to streamline and consolidate workforce preparation and 
     development programs, eliminate unnecessary duplication and 
     fragmentation in such programs as stated in section 
     3(a)(5)(A), and to provide maximum authority and 
     responsibility to States and local communities for operation 
     of State and local workforce preparation and development 
     programs as stated in section 3(a)(5)(B), the Federal 
     Government should transfer all of the functions of such 
     programs to the State and local communities, including the 
     responsibility to raise revenue to fund such programs; and
       (2) Federal tax rates should be reduced by the amount saved 
     by relinquishing Federal responsibility for workforce 
     preparation and development programs.

  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, I find myself in a very unusual position on 
the floor of the House.
  The Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], my good 
friend and colleague, has graciously agreed to accept my amendment, and 
several Members on the other side of the aisle have indicated their 
support for the Klink amendment. The problem is this, that my amendment 
was being offered tongue-in-cheek, and I myself do not support the 
amendment, and I do not support the underlying bill. I was trying to 
make a point with this amendment, and I fully intend, Mr. 

[[Page H9219]]
Chairman, to withdraw this amendment. Again, my dear friend, the 
chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], in all good 
faith, has offered to accept this amendment. Again, it was offered 
tongue-in-cheek, because I have a serious problem with the idea of 
block granting everything back to the States.
  The underlying bill, which was trying to consolidate more than 100 
educational and job training programs into 4 block grants to the 
States, while I believe Federal job training programs need 
consolidation, block grants I do not think are the best approach, and I 
do not think the whole idea we have in a number of other areas to block 
grant everything back to the States is a great idea either.
  I am reminded of the story of a young child who was about 6 years old 
who wrote a letter to Santa Claus, and somehow the letter ended up 
coming here to Washington, DC, and the postmaster picked it up, and he 
looked at it; the letter was written with crayon. It had ended up in 
Washington, DC. The postmaster picked it up, and he looked at the 
letter. It said:

       Dear Santa, my family is not going to have a good Christmas 
     because my father is unemployed. My mother has been sick. I 
     simply ask you to send me $10. With that money, I can buy 
     everyone in my family a little gift.

  The postmaster was really touched. He reached in his pocket. All he 
had was a $5 bill. He sent that $5 bill to the young boy with a note. 
He signed it Santa Claus.
  He got a thank you note back some weeks later. The boy said:

       Thank you so much, Santa, for sending that money to me. It 
     made a great difference at Christmastime. But, please, next 
     time do not send it through Washington, DC., because they 
     keep half of it.

  It makes no sense for us to send tax dollars to the Federal 
Government and, in turn, have the Federal Government redistribute that 
money to the States which, in turn, would redistribute the money to the 
counties under 50 different sets of guidelines.
  In fact, Federal block grants have been tried before. Many of them 
were terminated in the first Reagan administration after revelations of 
waste and fraud by local recipients.
  My amendment was to say would it not make more sense to let the 
States raise the money for these programs, run these programs 
themselves, distribute the funding and cut out the middleman, the 
Federal Government?
  Again, what I am talking about is cutting out the middleman.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KLINK. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. GOODLING. In spite of the gentleman's story, we accept the 
amendment, and I do want to point out that block granting and revenue 
sharing are two different things, and I will assure the gentleman that 
block granting, coming from my committee, is not revenue sharing.
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, again to the chairman, I thank him for his 
graciousness.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
  If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Goodling) 
there were--ayes 66, noes 43.
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was 
agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Gillmor) having assumed the chair, Mr. McInnis, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1617), to 
consolidate and reform work force development and literacy programs, 
and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 222, he reported 
the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee 
of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the Whole? If not, 
the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.

                             recorded vote

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 345, 
noes 79, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 671]

                               AYES--345

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller

[[Page H9220]]

     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--79

     Abercrombie
     Becerra
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Brown (FL)
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Engel
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Gordon
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy (MA)
     Klink
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Mineta
     Mink
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Poshard
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Studds
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Coburn
     Fields (TX)
     Moakley
     Oberstar
     Reynolds
     Royce
     Schumer
     Sisisky
     Tucker
     Volkmer

                              {time}  1755

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. MATSUI, and Mrs. SEASTRAND 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. BONO, Ms. JACKSON-LEE, Mr. BEILENSON, and Mr. MILLER of 
California changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________