[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 102 (Thursday, July 17, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H5413-H5440]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CARL D. PERKINS VOCATIONAL-TECHNICAL EDUCATION ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1997

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 187 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 187

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1853) to amend the Carl D. Perkins Vocational 
     and Applied Technology Education Act. The first reading of 
     the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against 
     consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 
     2(l)(6) of rule XI are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider 
     as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
     five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
     now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. During 
     consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
     Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on 
     the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has 
     caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional 
     Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. 
     Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except on a motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple resolution. The proposed rule is 
an open rule providing for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided 
and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce. The resolution waives points of order 
against the consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 
2(L)(6) of rule XI relating to the 3-day availability of the report.
  After general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule. Furthermore, it shall be in order to consider 
as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute 
rule the amendment in the name of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill. 
Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides the Chair may accord 
priority recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in 
the Congressional Record.
  Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for 
amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House 
with such amendments as may have been adopted. Finally, Mr. Speaker, 
the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, under the proposed rule, each Member has an opportunity 
to have their concerns addressed, debated, and ultimately voted up or 
down by this body. House Resolution 187 was reported out of the 
Committee on Rules by a unanimous voice vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 187, which is an 
open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 1853, the Carl D. 
Perkins Vocational-Technical Education Act Amendments of 1997.
  This act is named for the long-time chairman of the Education and 
Labor Committee who was a champion of educational opportunity for all 
Americans but especially for those who would not attend college but 
needed skills in order to find a meaningful place in America's work 
force.
  The continued availability of secondary and postsecondary vocational 
educational opportunities in concert with high economic goals is 
critical to ensuring that this Nation is equipped with a work force 
that can be competitive and productive in today's global economy.

[[Page H5414]]

  I am concerned, however, that the bill reported by the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce does not direct the funding toward those 
secondary school districts most in need of funding for their vocation 
and technical education programs. I am also concerned the reported bill 
eliminates the act's original emphasis on ensuring that women, 
minorities, the economically disadvantaged, and the disabled have 
access to quality vocational and technical programs.
  It is especially unfortunate that the committee bill eliminates the 
set-asides currently in the act which were created to ensure that there 
would be programs to serve displaced homemakers, single parents, and 
pregnant women to help them enter into employment that has 
traditionally not been open to women. In today's working environment it 
is critical all students be offered the opportunity created by these 
programs.
  However, since the Committee on Rules has recommended an open rule, I 
am hopeful that the House will adopt amendments which can address these 
concerns. These programs represent long-term investments in the health 
of the economy of the United States, and it would be penny-wise and 
pound-foolish to shortchange opportunities for those who would benefit 
the most.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the resolution.
  There was no objection.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 187 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. 1853.

                              {time}  1039


                     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. 
1853) to amend the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology 
Education Act, with Mr. Ewing 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] and 
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] will each control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 1853, the Carl D. Perkins 
Vocational-Technical Education Act Amendments of 1997. The legislation 
assists the 75 percent of the American people who do not complete a 4-
year college degree. Our youth should receive a high-quality education 
whether they are bound for college, the military, further training or 
directly into the work force.
  Before I go further, I want to take this opportunity to thank the 
members of the committee and the staff for their support in the 
development of this important piece of legislation. In particular I 
would like to recognize the hard work of the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Riggs], Chairman of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and 
Families. It was through his diligent commitment to a strong 
vocational-technical education program and many long hours of 
negotiations which have brought us here today.
  I would also like to recognize another Pennsylvanian, Mr. Peterson, 
who has also given an enormous amount of time in crafting this 
legislation. Mr. Peterson represents an area of Pennsylvania in which 
vocational-technical education is critical, and we appreciate his help 
and expertise in the area.
  I want to thank the subcommittee ranking member, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Martinez], who worked very closely with the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Riggs] to develop a bipartisan effort, and the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay], the ranking member of the full 
committee for the bipartisan effort put into this piece of legislation.
  The legislation enjoys a broad coalition of support, and I hope we 
will pick up more support as we go through this process and then 
through conference with the Senate.
  For far too long we paid little attention to the 75 percent of youth 
who do not go on and complete some 4-year college degree. Our youth 
should receive a high-quality education no matter what they plan to do 
in the future.
  In today's vocational-technical education programs, students need a 
very high-quality education for today's world. These students need 
strong academics and relevant skills in order to thrive in today's 
economy.
  In H.R. 1853, we have three overarching goals: strengthening 
academics; broadening the opportunities for vocational-technical 
education students; and sending more money to the classroom.
  The bill, first of all, sends 90 percent of the money down to the 
local level. Under current law only 75 percent gets there.
  Second, we alter the way the funds are distributed to ensure they are 
more equitably distributed. We are trying to make sure limited Federal 
dollars for vocational-technical education follow vocational-technical 
education students fairly and equitably.
  The legislation strengthens the academic component of vocational-
technical education programs, and this is so important because in 1950, 
60 percent of all the jobs that were available were jobs that were 
unskilled. But by the time we got to 1990, that figure dropped to 35 
percent. And by the year 2000 it is projected that only 15 percent of 
all jobs available will be for unskilled people. That is why this 
legislation is so important at this particular time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have reached, I believe, a bipartisan agreement, 
which is what our committee generally does when it comes to education, 
nutrition and child care issues. I do want to point out that there is 
no one that is a stronger advocate for programs that help, for 
instance, displaced homemakers than the person speaking and I have 
fought for them since I came to the Congress. And because of that, I 
want to make sure we understand that we have taken care of these 
concerns. We do not need any amendments to take care of displaced 
homemakers or other special populations. We have made very clear what 
we expect from this legislation.
  As my colleagues will notice, we ensure that members of special 
populations meet State benchmarks, established under section 114, and 
are prepared for secondary education, further learning and high-skill 
and high-wage careers. Then there is a financial audit that follows to 
make very, very sure that the vocational-technical education programs 
adhere to the requirements of the act, including those related to 
special populations.
  We also make it very clear that each State that receives an allotment 
under section 102 shall annually prepare and submit to the Secretary a 
report on how the State is performing on State benchmarks that relate 
to vocational-technical education programs, including special 
populations. The report submitted by the State, in accordance with 
subparagraph A, shall include a description of how special populations, 
displaced homemakers, single parents, single pregnant women 
participating in vocational-technical education programs have met the 
vocational-technical education benchmarks established by the State.
  We also say that the funds provided under this act may support 
programs at the local level for displaced homemakers, single pregnant 
women, and individuals in nontraditional occupations that lead to high-
skilled, high-wage end careers.

                              {time}  1045

  We also indicate that local funds can be used for programs for single 
parents, displaced homemakers, and single pregnant women. In all of 
those sections, we point out the need to serve special populations.
  I hope that we can pass this legislation today with an overwhelming 
vote and send a message to the Senate that we are ready to do business 
with the other body.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

[[Page H5415]]

  Each year the Perkins Act helps over 10 million vocational students 
receive high-quality education, to receive jobs and skill training and 
to receive support services. That is our country's flagship vocational 
education program. We have worked with our Republican colleagues for 
several months to resolve differences concerning reauthorization of 
this act and have reached a fair compromise in the way States 
distribute vocational education funds to the local educational 
agencies.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Riggs] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez] and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the chairman, for resolving 
these difficult issues.
  The bill as reported by the committee would have resulted in a 
significant reduction in funding for existing vocational education 
programs in urban and rural areas. The bipartisan agreement reached on 
the formula that will be offered later by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] preserves formula allocations for existing 
vocational education programs for the first 3 years, and it provides 
for the gradual implementation of a formula based 60 percent on poverty 
and 40 percent on population.
  Although some of us would have preferred maintaining the existing 
Perkins Act formula for all 5 years of reauthorization, this, however, 
is a fair, good faith compromise that will ensure the continuation of 
all local programs.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill also strengthens the integration of academics 
and vocational education to ensure that vocational education programs 
are academically challenging.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, this bill needs additional improvement with 
regard to women, especially for displaced homemakers and those entering 
nontraditional employment. Later this morning, the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] will offer amendments which are designed to achieve 
gender equity in vocational education, and despite what was said, it is 
needed, Mr. Chairman.
  I hope that our colleagues will support this amendment and support 
the reauthorization bill.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Riggs], the subcommittee chairman, who was so 
instrumental in bringing the legislation to the floor.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the very distinguished gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the chairman, for yielding me the 
time.
  I want to say good morning to the Speaker and my colleagues and tell 
them that I am glad to stand before them today in very strong support 
of the very important Federal education statute, the Carl D. Perkins 
Vocational-Technical Education Act Amendments of 1997.
  This bill reforms and reauthorizes, in my view, one of the most 
important Federal education statutes. It provides support for 
vocational and technical education programs, which are extremely 
important for meeting the needs, as I think the chairman has already 
mentioned, of the 75 percent of our young people who are not college 
bound, or who, if they go to college, will not complete college with a 
4-year degree.
  I worry a little bit that, particularly at this point in time, when 
we find ourselves debating a number of tax incentives, to make the 
third and fourth years of education more affordable, more accessible to 
young people, that we might look past the fact, again, that most of our 
young people are not college bound, or, if they go to college, they 
will not complete college with a 4-year degree.
  Because we do have, I think, a very legitimate interest and a real 
Federal role in helping to prepare those young people for the work 
force. That is, I believe, in our national defense interest as a 
country. And, of course, we always have an interest at the Federal 
level in attempting to help to prepare and educate our young people to 
sustain our democracy.
  So I want to take this opportunity to thank the members of our 
committee for their contributions to this legislation. I want to thank, 
in particular, of course, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling], the chairman, for his strong leadership in the area of 
vocational and technical education over the years, not just at the 
Federal level, but also in support of some very well-established 
vocational institutions in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and in his 
congressional district.
  Speaking of Pennsylvania, I want to thank a new member of the 
committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Peterson] for his help 
on this legislation. He was a cosponsor of H.R. 1853 and has worked 
with us very diligently to help ensure passage of the bill.
  This bill is very much bipartisan in nature. And for that, I want to 
thank the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay], the distinguished ranking 
member of the full committee, my very good friend, and the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Martinez], the distinguished ranking member of the 
subcommittee which I chair.
  We have tried to generate a broad base of support for this 
legislation and a bill that both sides of the aisle can support and 
that, hopefully, can be signed into law by the President. It is 
absolutely critical, my colleagues, that our young people receive a 
high-quality education, whether they are bound for college, whether 
they are going to enter the military, which is still the largest 
training institution in the world, or whether they are going to go 
directly into the work force.
  Three themes resonate throughout this bill. You might call these 
three themes the ABC's of vocational-technical education: Strengthening 
academics, broadening opportunities, and sending more money to the 
classroom.
  The first and most important goal, of course, is strengthening 
academics. And what we have tried to do in this legislation is combine 
strong academics with expanded vocational and technical education 
opportunities for young people.
  The second theme, of course, is broadening opportunities for young 
people after high school. We heard testimony at a field hearing just 
across the Potomac River in northern Virginia at Thomas Jefferson High 
School in Fairfax County, VA, that there are currently 18,000 jobs, and 
these are high-wage, high-skill jobs, that are currently unfilled in 
northern Virginia because employers and business owners cannot find the 
job applicants to fill those positions.
  We do not have an education system that prepares enough of our young 
people to be technologically capable for the work force and to have, if 
you will, the work force literacy skills, the entry skills that they 
will need to go out there and compete and succeed in the work force.
  The average salary for those unfilled positions in northern Virginia, 
we heard, is over $45,000. That is the starting annual salary for those 
positions on average. If we are going to ensure that America meets the 
next century as a world leader, we have to focus on making sure that 
our citizens have the technological skills to compete in an ever-more 
global economy. If the global economy today is the size of a beach 
ball, the global economy of the 21st century, the brave new world just 
around the corner, is going to be the size a golf ball. What we are 
trying to do here is bring the Perkins vocational-technical education 
statute into the 21st century.

  The last thing that I want to mention is that we are in this bill 
driving more money down to the classroom. My colleagues are going to 
see that theme, that effort, repeated in every major Federal education 
bill that we bring to the House floor in this session of Congress. We 
want to get more money down to the local level, into the classroom, and 
not into the hands of someone who does not know that child's name. That 
is our goal.
  In this bill we send 90 percent of the funds to the local level. If 
we are going to see real change in vocational-technical education, it 
is not going to come from the Federal level, it is going to come from 
the local level, from teachers in the classroom making a difference. 
Change is going to come from schools like the new technology high 
school in Napa County, CA, in my district, which is preparing students 
to enter a high technology career or to go on to college.
  We have worked very closely, as I mentioned earlier, with Members on 
the other side of the aisle trying to form a bipartisan agreement on 
this bill. We have made well over 60 changes to this legislation to 
date to accommodate the request of House Democratic

[[Page H5416]]

Members, members of the committee, 60 changes since the date of 
introducing the bill to passage of the bill by the committee.
  In fact, the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez], the ranking 
member of the subcommittee, wrote me a letter on June 4 outlining 
several concerns he had with the discussion draft of the legislation, 
the bill that I had introduced; and I can now say that we have met the 
concerns of all the areas he addressed, including the substate formula.
  The chairman explained the compromise that we have worked out on the 
formula. However, I wanted to point out for the record that we 
developed a substate formula in this bill which more equitably 
distributes funding throughout the States and more appropriately 
distributes money for students in vocational and technical education 
programs.
  This formula does not take money away from cities or poor areas. And 
under our bill, I believe that almost all school districts will gain. 
H.R. 1853 is a good bill. It is a fair bill. It is a bill that is going 
to do a better job in preparing our young people for the educational 
and employment opportunities of the 21st century, and I urge its 
passage.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Martinez].
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member of the 
full committee for yielding me time.
  I am pleased to join the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay], my 
ranking member, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], the chairmen of the full 
committee and subcommittee, in bringing this bill before the House 
today.
  H.R. 1853, the Carl D. Perkins Vocational-Technical Education Act 
Amendments of 1997 have been the subject of many hours of discussion 
between myself and the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], with the 
aim of producing a bipartisan bill we can all support.
  While not being absolutely perfect, this legislation has gained my 
support and I believe should gain the support of my colleagues due to 
the changes that have been made and the amendment to be offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
  Upon the expiration of general debate, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the chairman, will present us with the 
manager's amendment to this bill, which deals with one of the most 
fundamental concerns the committee Democrats had during the markup.
  That was the secondary substate formula. Instead of the reported 
bill's provision, which deemphasized poverty and allowed the States to 
withhold dollars which should go out by formula, the manager's 
amendment would incorporate a bipartisan compromise which affects the 
funding stream for existing vocational education programs.
  This new formula gradually incorporates a slightly less targeted 
distribution method over a 5-year period. At the end of the five-year 
period, funds going down to the secondary school districts will go out 
based on a formula of 60 percent poverty, 40 percent population.
  Unfortunately, the one issue that clouds a fuller bipartisan embrace 
of this legislation is its termination of programs ensuring gender 
equity. As the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay], the ranking member, 
mentioned a minute ago, my colleague, the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. 
Mink] will offer an amendment to rectify this situation.
  I strongly urge careful consideration of this amendment. I would like 
to thank the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay], the ranking member, 
and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the chairman, and 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] for the work on this bill.
  Dealing with the more difficult issues which this reauthorization 
presents took many hours of both Members' time and staff time. However, 
as we have done on other bills which we have passed out of the House 
during this Congress out of our committee, we put our partisan 
differences aside and reached an agreement that we could all support.
  I urge the Members on my side to support this bill.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Ballenger], a very distinguished member of the 
subcommittee and the chairman.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to speak in favor of H.R. 1853, 
the Carl D. Perkins Vocational-Technical Education Act Amendments. As a 
businessman who had to hire many people through my business lifetime, 
the most frustrating thing that occurs is when a person requests to 
fill out an application for work but they do not have time and they ask 
to be able to take that application home with them. One knows then they 
cannot read or write, which one we do not know. But they still want a 
job.
  Primary and secondary education did not provide what is necessary. 
That person is trapped in that never-never land of joblessness and 
unemployability. Job training is their only way out. Giving them some 
help through vocational and technical training gives them a chance.
  Please vote for H.R. 1853.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Kildee].
  Mr. KILDEE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge passage of this legislation. While 
bringing bipartisan support for this bill has not been easy, it has 
come about, and I believe that is both significant and important.
  There are several provisions of this bill that are commendable. The 
``such sums'' authorizations, for instance, gives us room to seek a 
significant increase in funding for vocational education.
  The separate authorization for tech prep is a noteworthy 
accomplishment. This is a highly successful and popular program. It has 
done well in appropriations and should certainly grow in the years 
ahead.
  The provisions of the reserve for Indian programs are good, and I am 
especially encouraged that we have made bureau funded secondary schools 
eligible to receive funds under the within State allocation of the 
basic State grant.
  We also permit private schoolteachers to participate in professional 
development programs in both Goals 2000 and the Improving America's 
Schools Act of 1994, and I am especially glad that we permit the States 
and localities to do so in this legislation.
  The formula regarding the within State allocation of funds has been 
improved and refined through this reauthorization process. While I 
certainly support the changes that have been made, I continue to 
believe that the formula can be further improved and targeted.
  In another area, I regret very much that we have weakened current law 
with respect to sex equity. That is something I have been pushing for 
my 21 years here in the Congress, and I think that the role of the sex 
equity coordinator has been very important and I will be supporting the 
Mink-Morella amendment when that is offered.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a good bill, even though I believe 
there are several areas where it can be improved. I intend to support 
the floor amendments and will continue to work in the conference for 
improvements.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the chairman of the full committee.
  In section 103(c)(1) of the legislation now under consideration, 
secondary school programs in schools funded by the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs will no longer be eligible to receive assistance under the 
reserve of funds for Indian programs. Am I correct in that assumption?
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KILDEE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GOODLING. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. KILDEE. I understand, however, that the provision in question is 
included in this legislation in order to make it clear that the bureau 
funded schools with secondary vocational programs will be considered a 
local education agency eligible for funding

[[Page H5417]]

under the within State allocation of funds under the basic State grant.
  Mr. GOODLING. That is also correct. In accordance with provisions of 
section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 
bureau funded schools are local educational agencies. Thus they would 
qualify for funding under the basic State grant. Bureau funded schools 
will receive vocational education funding assistance from the within 
State allocation of funds and will qualify for such assistance in the 
same manner as would any other local education agency in the State.
  Mr. KILDEE. The purpose of the language in section 103(c)(1), 
therefore, is to make bureau funded schools eligible for funding under 
the within State allocation of funds. Making such schools ineligible 
for funding under section 103(c)(1) removes any question of the source 
of funding, as well as any question of whether or not such schools are 
eligible to receive funding from more than one source. The intent of 
our language is to make clear that funding for bureau funded schools 
operating secondary programs will come as a result of the eligibility 
of those schools to receive assistance under section 202 of this 
legislation, which amends part B of title II of current law.
  Mr. GOODLING. That too is correct. I would point out, however, that 
bureau funded schools that have operated adult education programs would 
remain eligible to receive funding under section 103(c)(1) pertaining 
to the reserve of funds for Indian programs. The provision making 
bureau funded schools ineligible to receive section 103(c)(1) funding 
applies only to secondary school programs at such schools.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that specific 
clarification, and I thank the gentleman for joining with me in this 
colloquy.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation. It is 
much needed. I want to observe, too, with the leadership of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the gentleman from Missouri 
[Mr. Clay] and certainly the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], the 
subcommittee chairman, that we have an excellent example here, maybe 
exhibit A, of how well we can work together on a bipartisan basis and 
better serve or genuinely serve the needs of the people. I think this 
is an excellent example of how we can move forward without partisan 
bickering.
  I also want to say that this particular subject is very near and dear 
to me. I have always been devoted to vocational education, but I must 
say in the modern global economy and the acceleration of technology, 
this legislation is more important than ever. We can no longer ignore 
those students whose talents are wasted because they never go to 
college. It is not only a waste for them but it is a waste for the 
needs of our economy.
  Excellent example--exhibit A of how well we can work on a bipartisan 
basis to better serve the genuine needs of the people. The modern 
acceleration of technology and increasing competition in the global 
economy require us to rethink our approach to education. We can no 
longer ignore * * * and therefore waste the talents of the vast numbers 
of students who never go to college. There exists a yawning gap between 
those students who are prepared and unprepared to enter our high-skills 
workplace.
  As a result, our economy suffers. If we are to meet our work force 
demands we must have effective technology schools, such as Sussex Tech 
in Sussex County, NJ. Bergen technical school, Passaic and Warren 
County schools.
  I have a particular longstanding interest in improving the relevance 
of vocational education. This legislation does this.
  We need to continue to improve the national school-to-work system--a 
system that would emphasize technological developments.
  This legislation makes several beneficial changes to vocational 
education. First of all, this bill eliminates set-asides which have 
prohibited a particular State's ability to adjust to its own special 
populations. With this change, a State can assess and address its own 
needs.
  We need desperately to continue to improve the national school-to-
work system, and this legislation does that in a very real way. It 
makes several beneficial changes to the vocational bill. It certainly 
eliminates set-asides which have prohibited a particular State's 
ability in the past to adjust to its own special populations. I think 
this represents progress. With this change, a State can assess and 
address its own needs.
  The legislation also emphasizes sending funds to the local level. 
With the passage of this legislation, 90 percent of the funds will be 
headed to the local level to provide programs to prepare our youth for 
the technological age.
  This legislation makes an important change to assist rural and 
suburban areas in the lowering of the minimum grant amount for local 
educational agencies and postsecondary institutions. This change is 
helpful because it will allow more schools to apply for grants, since 
they will be more likely to become eligible.
  The legislation also emphasizes sending funds to the local level. 
With the passage of this legislation, 90 percent of the funds will be 
headed to the local level to provide programs to prepare our youth for 
the technological age. It makes important changes to assist rural and 
suburban areas as well as the urban areas, to get the needed minimum 
grant for local educational agencies and postsecondary institutions. 
This is a great improvement over the past.
  This legislation also includes a provision which requires States to 
establish their own State benchmarks to measure their progress. The 
States are to annually submit a report to the Secretary on how they are 
preforming on their State benchmarks. I am a strong believer in 
benchmarks since they help provide oversight and they help determine 
the effectiveness of various programs.
  This legislation will help us achieve the goal of providing our youth 
a higher level of technology training. This will provide greater access 
to a system that would allow these students to build a high-quality, 
high-value high-wage career.
  School to work--relevant education for personal fulfillment and meet 
economic needs.
  Mr. Chairman, may I conclude by simply saying that school-to-work is 
relevant education, not only for personal fulfillment of the students 
involved but also to meet our vast economic needs in the new brave 
world in which we are operating.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Peterson], who has been very active in helping us put 
this legislation together.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the 
gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to commend the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Riggs], the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez], and the gentleman 
from Missouri [Mr. Clay], the ranking members, for working together to 
put together a bill that I think will make a positive difference in 
vocational education in America.
  I would also like to commend the staff, Becky Voslow, Sally Lovejoy, 
and Alex Nock, who worked tirelessly together. We all know, when doing 
compromises, who really does a lot of the hard work. I want to commend 
them for all their efforts.
  I believe if this country is going to compete, if we are going to 
continue to be a manufacturing leader in the world, and I do not think 
we will be a strong country if we do not, we have to improve our 
ability to deliver vocational and technical education. I think this 
bill moves us in the right direction. It does not solve all the 
problems. I toured a plant in Blossburg, PA, in my district this week 
that is doing something very interesting. That plant employs about 
1,000 people in one of the most rural parts of Pennsylvania and is 
growing fast. They have brought to Pennsylvania a Japanese technology, 
refined it; these things used to be made for Japanese cars, these 
parts, in Japan. They are now being manufactured in Pennsylvania. But 
that plant is high technology. There has been a huge investment made 
there. The workers there need skills and a good academic base. That is 
important in this country.
  I recently also toured a plant in State College. If one buys a 
Japanese TV, there is a very good chance the picture tube came from 
State College, PA, because they are really becoming a dominant player 
in that market. Again, huge investment of capital and

[[Page H5418]]

very high tech jobs. They are not strong backs and strong arms that are 
needed but technical knowhow.
  This bill moves more funds to the classroom, 15 percent more. I think 
that makes a big difference. We need to get the money in the classroom. 
Many of our arguments have been the Federal rules that we want to put 
down on the States. I come from State government. State government 
bureaucracies do not need us to tell them all the fine details of 
educating our youngsters. It is important that we allow them to be 
free. Because what we have when we have a lot of Federal rules, we have 
a Federal bureaucracy, and if we go into most State departments of 
education, the majority of the people working there are dealing with 
implementing the Federal rules. So we have all of this money wasted at 
the Federal level and at the State level that should be going to the 
classroom.
  The other issue that we struggled over was the rural set-aside. I was 
disappointed in the great opposition for that because rural America is 
way behind urban America in vocational education. If this country is 
going to remain strong, rural America needs to have equity. We need to 
be able to train the young people. Many parts of rural America do not 
have vocational education. All we wanted to do was to have a 10-percent 
set-aside that allowed States to meet that need if they wanted to.
  We were not against money for urban. Urban has always been the big 
winner when we look at the formula. We were disappointed but we do 
accept the compromise of five and give. But I would like to say to my 
urban friends, in the future, rural America, if we are not going to be 
an imposition on the welfare rolls, we have to be able to train our 
workers, and vocational education is one of the ways we need to do 
that.
  I want to thank all of those that compromised. There may have been a 
little more compromise than I would have liked, but I am willing to 
accept it today and move this bill forward.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Davis].
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to thank the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, while I commend and congratulate all of those who have 
hammered out this agreement, I have some concerns about it. There seems 
to be a theme that resonates throughout this Congress, and that theme 
is to take from the poor and give to the wealthy, well-to-do and the 
rich. It is the very theme that divides rather than unites. It is the 
theme that shatters millions of Americans' hope and faith in the 
American system. It seems to me that some portions of this compromise 
continues that theme. This compromise, while better than the original 
proposed formula, moves away from the emphasis on poverty to an 
emphasis on population in fiscal years 2001 and 2002. Under the current 
distribution formula for funds for school districts, the emphasis is 70 
percent on poverty and 30 percent on population. I believe that this is 
a fair formula.
  In my district, Mr. Chairman, I have thousands and thousands of 
disadvantaged, underprivileged individuals who need to catch up, 
individuals who need special attention. I do not believe that as we 
shift away from an emphasis on need to an across-the-board program, 
that this is in the best interests of rural America, nor is it in the 
best interests of inner-city urban America.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation. I want to commend the gentleman from California and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania for their excellent work and our colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle that serve on this committee. My colleagues 
may have heard me applauding a few minutes ago when the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania made his remarks, because I regret the fact that the 
chairman reached, I think, the right conclusion in the face of 
opposition to cut the rural set-aside from 10 to 5 percent. I think 
that was inappropriate pressure from the other side of the aisle. I 
think they should not be anti-rural in their actions. Nevertheless, 
this bill has many important features that are positive.
  H.R. 1853, for example, most importantly alters the amount of dollars 
spent at the local level. Under the current law, only 75 percent of 
Federal dollars currently are required to flow to the local school 
districts. This bill, of course, in a very important change, requires 
90 percent of those dollars to go to the local level. Any true changes 
in vocational technical education must come from the local level, from 
teachers who are in the classroom, to make a difference.
  Mr. Chairman, I am also pleased that this legislation contains two 
important components to assist rural communities and schools. Not as 
much as I had hoped but a big and important change, especially in the 
longer term. One provision, of course, encourages the States and 
permits them to set aside a portion of the funds flowing to the local 
level to target rural or nonmetropolitan areas. This provision provides 
States with discretion in the equitable distribution of funds 
throughout the State. An additional provision lowers the minimum grants 
for secondary and postsecondary programs, enabling more schools to 
qualify.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. Chairman, I think that is a very important change, it is long 
needed, and I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] very 
much for his diligent work on this.
   Mr. Chairman, 75 percent of American youth do not complete a 4-year 
college degree. This bill appropriately changes the way funds are 
distributed from the Federal Government to the States by targeting the 
funds more directly to the youth and young adults up to age 24 which 
are served by the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology 
Education Act. This legislation broadens opportunities after high 
school for vocational-technical education students by ensuring that 
they receive a high-quality education which will allow them to continue 
on to college or further education, the military, training or directly 
into the work force.
  In addition, H.R. 1853 most importantly alters the amount of dollars 
sent to the local level. Under current law, only 75 percent of Federal 
dollars currently are required to flow to the local school districts. 
This bill requires 90 percent of the dollars to go to the local level. 
Any true change in vocational-technical education must come from the 
local level--from teachers who are in the classroom making a 
difference. The increased funding that H.R. 1853 sends to the local 
level in this Member's home State of Nebraska will result in a $52,000 
increase for the Lincoln Public School System, a $3,000 increase for 
the York Public Schools, an increase of $1,600 for the Wahoo Public 
Schools, $700 more for the Homer Community Schools, a $2,200 increase 
for Nebraska City Public Schools, and $8,000 more in funding for the 
Norfolk Public Schools, just to name a few.
  This Member is also pleased that H.R. 1853 contains two important 
components to assist rural schools. One provision enables States to set 
aside a portion of the funds flowing to the local level to target rural 
areas. This provision provides States with discretion in the equitable 
distribution of funds throughout the State. An additional provision 
lowers the minimum grant for secondary and postsecondary programs, 
enabling more small schools to qualify.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. This 
is an important reform bill, and it deserves to be supported.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Delaware [Mr. Castle], a very important member of the committee.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Goodling] for yielding this time to me, and I do congratulate 
Chairman Goodling and the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] and the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] and the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Martinez] and the staff of this committee, which is rapidly 
becoming the committee that seems to work out very difficult 
legislation and bring it to the floor with a minimum amount of 
opposition and really do something to improve education in America, and 
I do rise in very strong support of this legislation.
  We have to remember that about 75 percent of our Nation's youth does 
not receive a 4-year college degree, and in order to ensure that that 
percentage of our population is going to thrive in today's economy, in 
my judgment it is

[[Page H5419]]

imperative they receive a quality high school education, meaning 
relevant skills and strong academics, whether they are bound for 
college, the military, further training, or go directly into the work 
force.
  In the past, vocational-technical education policy encouraged the 
development of specific occupational programs in areas such as trade 
and industry, business, and home economics. It targeted students with 
special needs such as displaced homemakers and single mothers, and 
today we realize mandating specific uses of dollars at the federal 
level does not necessarily add up to a quality vocational education.
  It is time for Federal policy to give more discretion to States and 
local districts, which are and always have been the true laboratories 
of reform.
  I just like to share my experiences in Delaware, which has an 
outstanding vocational education program. In fact, one of our State's 
three vocational-technical high schools, Sussex Technical High School 
in Georgetown, DE, was honored as a U.S. Department of Education blue 
ribbon school of excellence. This occurred after the school went 
through a paradigm shift similar to the paradigm shift we are seeing in 
the legislation we are considering today. It transformed itself from a 
center serving part-time students into a full-time technical high 
school offering a rigorous integrated program of academic and 
vocational studies to kids who actually choose to attend. In 1988, 
students from this school scored at the bottom of the heap on 
standardized tests, and enrollment had declined 35 percent in 10 years. 
After a massive restructuring effort in 1988, Sussex Tech became a 
full-time comprehensive high school with a challenging program of study 
organized around relevant career clusters. The result has been a 
dramatic improvement in SAT scores and in the number of students taking 
the SAT, a dropout rate of less than 2 percent, soaring enrollment in 
college prep level math courses and a 100-percent increase in 
percentage of students enrolling in postsecondary education.
  The bill we consider today encompasses the main principles of this 
paradigm shift which I was able to witness in my own State. It 
strengthens the academics of vocational-technical education students, 
broadens the opportunities of vocational-technical education students 
and sends more dollars to the local level for vocational-technical 
education programs, and I encourage each and every one of us to support 
this very outstanding piece of legislation.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Upton].
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I too rise in strong support of this 
legislation and in praise of the leaders of the committee and the fine 
staff.
  The educational needs of our youth indeed have changed since 1917, 
which was when the Federal Government first began to support vocational 
education. Today, still, vocational-technical education programs fill a 
very critical need.
  As my colleague from Delaware indicated, the programs prepare 75 
percent of American youths who do not complete a 4-year degree for jobs 
requiring advanced training and knowledge. The programs demand a strong 
background in math and science, as they should, and students have to be 
prepared for the technical and competitive jobs that exist today.
  I know this because I have frequently visited with students and 
teachers and wonderful facilities throughout my district who use and 
support these programs, and they strongly support it. The bill before 
us today builds on that success. It encourages stronger academics, 
greater opportunities for use after high school and targets more 
dollars to the classroom. In fact, 90 percent of the Federal dollars 
will be sent to the local level under this bill, and that is how it 
should be.
  Finally, I am also pleased that the bill preserves the strength of 
the very popular tech prep program. In southwest Michigan this program 
has quickly become an integral part of students' learning experience.
  Our businesses today are rightly demanding a better prepared work 
force. This bill helps in a major way, and I urge all members to 
support H.R. 1853.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary], an important new member of our 
committee.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1853, 
and I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and his 
staff for their hard work. This legislation reforms and repeals a 
number of burdensome and arcane provisions, including set-asides for 
criminal offenders and unfunded mandates on local and State 
governments.
  More importantly, H.R. 1853 sends more money directly to the local 
level, a 15-percent increase over current law. It reduces the amount of 
money that a State can hold for administrative purposes from 5 to 2 
percent and ensures that Federal dollars are being used to support 
programs and not to sustain bureaucracies.
  Another important provision of H.R. 1853 that is especially important 
for rural districts like mine in Tennessee protects the right of home 
schoolers to educate their children at home. Further, this legislation 
prohibits vocational-technical education programs from requiring 
individuals to choose or pursue a specific career path or measure.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this important 
legislation that will help educate some of our Nation's children who 
need it the most and preserve the right of every child in a vocational-
technical education program to receive a well-rounded education.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I do that just to again thank the staff who worked so 
hard:
  Becky Voslow, Mary Clagett, Vic Klatt, Sally Lovejoy; staff 
Republican members Mark Davis, Trent Barton with the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs]; Bob Moran with the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Peterson]; Democratic committee staff Alex Nock, June Harris, Mark 
Zuckerman, David Evans; Congressional Research Service for all the 
thousands of formula runs that they made trying to get one that would 
fit one of our colleagues on committee from New Jersey; it was very 
difficult to do; and Rick Appling and Wayne Riddle.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my support of H.R. 
1853, the Carl D. Perkins Vocational-Technical Education Act Amendments 
of 1997. Seventy-five percent of American youth do not complete a 4-
year college degree. Vocational-technical education programs ensure 
that the necessary training and a high quality education is available 
to those individuals. Our society is increasingly reliant on workers 
who have technological skills and advanced training, making the support 
of these programs critical to our economy.
  I am especially pleased that this legislation ensures that States, 
localities, and parents have maximum control over decisions affecting 
these programs and students--and makes certain that 90 percent of each 
State allocation goes to local districts.
  By helping young people to acquire these necessary skills, we are 
improving the opportunities available for our youth and helping our 
businesses to compete in the technologically advanced, global economy.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to thank the chairman and members of 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce for their work with 
bringing the Carl D. Perkins Vocational-Technical Education Act to the 
House floor today. I am pleased that H.R. 1853 includes language which 
enables Oregon to continue its integrated K-14 education and training 
system.
  Oregon has a unique set of regional partnerships composed of 
secondary and postsecondary schools. Oregon's consortium structure 
increases student achievement and promotes high skill standards by 
making better professional technical programs available in a cost-
effective manner to remote and sparsely populated areas.
  Oregon's innovative programs continue to do an outstanding job 
preparing our students for the education and working challenges of the 
21st century. It is my hope that other States will take a look at 
Oregon's regional consortiums, and consider this model to improve the 
teaching and learning of all our students.
  I thank the chairman and members of the committee for including this 
important language for Oregon in H.R. 1853.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this 
important legislation to reauthorize the Carl Perkins Act. These 
programs are making great strides in improving technical education in 
my State of Oregon and across this Nation.

[[Page H5420]]

  Most of my colleagues need no reminder that the high-tech industry 
has become one of the most important forces behind our surging, 
economy, and has produced millions of new manufacturing and 
information-technology jobs in this decade. In fact, the electronics 
and information technology industry employed more than 4 million 
American workers in 1995, and the average wage of a high-tech worker is 
nearly 60-percent higher than that of the average private sector 
worker. However, I am repeatedly told by high-tech companies in my 
State that we're still not educating enough workers with adequate 
science, math and engineering training to fill those jobs.
  The Carl Perkins Act educates over 10,000 students each year through 
a variety of vocational education programs that have been shown to be 
highly successful in helping to prepare students for high-tech careers. 
In my State, the number of Professional Technical students is 
increasing by 9 percent annually and should reach 35 percent by the 
year 2000.
  I am pleased that we have reached a reasonable compromise on the 
funding formulas and have partially restored the size of the minimum 
grants to local education agencies. While I do not believe that we 
should alter these formulas, it is beneficial that we have been able to 
reach a consensus and hopefully reauthorize spending on these vital 
programs. I commend and congratulate the distinguished chairman, the 
subcommittee chairman and the ranking members for their hard work in 
doing this.
  I would like to mention my satisfaction with one measure in this bill 
that would allow secondary and postsecondary schools to join in 
consortia to allow professional technical education to be delivered in 
a continuum from grades 9 through 14.
  Under a waiver granted by the Secretary of Education, Oregon has 
already developed 10 such regional consortia that serve half of the 
eligible students. These consortia are common sense and cost-effective 
means of improving vocational education. In establishing the consortia, 
we have not only increased the number of students involved in the 
programs, but have improved professional technical education by 
engaging the entire community, including local businesses, to provide 
continuous quality improvement.
  I am pleased that we have been able to address this bill, and 
continue providing these important programs to advance the technical 
educations of so many students across the Nation.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for H.R. 1853, 
the Carl D. Perkins Vocational-Technical Act Amendments of 1997. This 
important legislation reauthorizes and revises the current vocational 
education statute.
  H.R. 1853 focuses on strengthening the academics of vocational 
training for those among our Nation's youth who do not earn a 4-year 
college degree. In doing so, it ensures the overall quality of 
vocational education and provides special populations with access to 
high quality vocational education.
  As the Nation moves individuals from the welfare rolls to the work 
force, and as the Nation enters the 21st century, it is essential that 
welfare recipients and other disadvantaged Americans have access to the 
education and vocational training they need to effectively compete in 
the new job market.
  Vocational programs are critical. As such, they broaden career 
opportunities for the 75 percent of high school students who do not 
earn college degrees. They also equip many of our Nation's 
disadvantaged and disabled populations to compete for high paying jobs, 
build careers, and raise the standard of living for their families.
  In 1994 the U.S. Census Bureau reported that individuals with an 
associates degree earned an average of $2,000 more per year than those 
with only a high school diploma. According to the Department of Labor, 
the number of low-skilled jobs is expected to decline from 47 percent 
of the work force in 1993 to 27 percent in the year 2000--and--it is 
expected that nearly half of all jobs in the 21st century will require 
some post-secondary education.
  It is for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, that I urge my colleagues to 
vote in favor of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational-Technical Education Act 
Amendments. It is vitally important that the Nation's new work force 
receive effective education and vocational training. Support of this 
legislation is one means of ensuring its accessibility.
  Vote ``yes'' for H.R. 1818.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered 
read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 1853

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Carl D. Perkins Vocational-
     Technical Education Act Amendments of 1997''.

      SEC. 2. REFERENCES TO ACT.

       (a) Short Title of Act.--Section 1(a) of the Act is amended 
     by striking ``(a) Short Title.--'' and further by striking 
     ``Vocational and Applied Technology'' and inserting 
     ``Vocational-Technical''.
       (b) References to Act.--Except as otherwise expressly 
     provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is 
     expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a title, 
     chapter, part, subpart, section, subsection, or other 
     provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a 
     title, chapter, part, subpart, section, subsection, or other 
     provision of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational-Technology 
     Education Act as amended in subsection (a).

      SEC. 3. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       Section 1(b) is repealed.

      SEC. 4. PURPOSE.

       Section 2 of the Act is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       ``It is the purpose of this Act to develop more fully the 
     academic, occupational, and technical skills of individuals 
     participating in vocational-technical education programs. 
     This purpose will be achieved through concentrating resources 
     on improving vocational-technical education programs leading 
     to academic and technical skill competencies needed to work 
     in a technologically advanced society.''.

      SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 3 of the Act is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``$1,600,000,000'' and 
     all that follows and inserting ``$1,300,000,000, for fiscal 
     year 1998 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 4 
     succeeding fiscal years to carry out the provisions of titles 
     I and II.'';
       (2) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
       ``(b) Title I.--Of the amounts made available under 
     subsection (a)--
       ``(1) 1.5 percent shall be reserved to carry out section 
     103, relating to Indian and Native Hawaiians programs; and
       ``(2) 0.2 percent shall be reserved to carry out section 
     101A, relating to the territories.''; and
       (3) by striking subsections (c) through (f).
    TITLE I--VOCATIONAL-TECHNICAL EDUCATION ASSISTANCE TO THE STATES

      SEC. 101. ALLOTMENT.

       (a) In General.--Title I is amended by striking the matter 
     preceding the text of section 101 and inserting the 
     following:
   ``TITLE I--VOCATIONAL-TECHNICAL EDUCATION ASSISTANCE TO THE STATES

                  ``PART A--ALLOTMENT AND ALLOCATION''

     ``SEC. 101. ALLOTMENT.''.

       (b) Allotment.--
       (1) Paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 101(a) are amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(a) Specific Populations.--
       ``(1) In general.--In each fiscal year, from amounts made 
     available under section 3(a), the Secretary shall reserve--
       ``(A) 1.5 percent to carry out section 103, of which--
       ``(i) 1.25 percent shall be available to carry out section 
     103(c); and
       ``(ii) 0.25 percent shall be available to carry out section 
     103(i); and
       ``(B) 0.2 percent for the purpose of carrying out section 
     101A.
       ``(2) Remainder of funds.--From the remainder of the sums 
     appropriated pursuant to section 3, the Secretary shall allot 
     to each State for each fiscal year--
       ``(A) an amount which bears the same ratio to 50 percent of 
     the sums being allotted as the product of the population aged 
     15 to 19 inclusive, in the State in the fiscal year preceding 
     the fiscal year for which the determination is made and the 
     State's allotment ratio bears to the sum of the corresponding 
     products for all the States; and
       ``(B) an amount which bears the same ratio to 50 percent of 
     the sums being allotted as the product of the population aged 
     20 to 24, inclusive, in the State in the fiscal year 
     preceding the fiscal year for which the determination is made 
     and the State's allotment ratio bears to the sum of the 
     corresponding products for all the States.''
       (2) Paragraph (3) of section 101(a) is amended--
       (A) by striking subparagraphs (A) and (C);
       (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (D) as (A) and 
     (B), respectively;
       (C) in subparagraph (A), as redesignated, by striking 
     clause (i), and inserting the following:
       ``(i) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and 
     subject to subparagraph (B) and clause (ii), no State shall 
     receive less than \1/2\ of 1 percent of the amount available 
     for each such program for each fiscal year under this 
     subsection.''; and
       (D) in subparagraph (A)(ii), as redesignated, by striking 
     ``or part A, B, C, D, or E of title III''.
       (3) By amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
       ``(c) Allotment Ratio.--
       ``(1) In general.--The allotment ratio for any State shall 
     be 1.00 less the product of--
       ``(A) 0.50; and
       ``(B) the quotient obtained by dividing the per capita 
     income for the State by the per capita income for all the 
     States (exclusive of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands), 
     except that--

[[Page H5421]]

       ``(i) the allotment ratio in no case shall be more than 
     0.55 or less than 0.40; and
       ``(ii) the allotment ratio for Puerto Rico and the Virgin 
     Islands shall be 0.55.
       ``(2) Allotment ratios.--The allotment ratios shall be 
     promulgated by the Secretary for each fiscal year between 
     October 1 and December 31 of the fiscal year preceding the 
     fiscal year for which the determination is made. Allotment 
     ratios shall be computed on the basis of the average of the 
     appropriate per capita incomes for the 3 most recent 
     consecutive fiscal years for which satisfactory data are 
     available.
       ``(3) Definition.--The term `per capita income' means, with 
     respect to a fiscal year, the total personal income in the 
     calendar year ending in such year, divided by the population 
     of the area concerned in such year.
       ``(4) Population determination.--For the purposes of this 
     section, population shall be determined by the Secretary on 
     the basis of the latest estimates available to the 
     Department.''.

     SEC. 101A. THE TERRITORIES.

       Section 101A of the Act is amended by inserting after 
     subsection (c) the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Restriction.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated 
     States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau shall not 
     receive any funds under this part for any fiscal year that 
     begins after September 30, 2001.''.

      SEC. 102. WITHIN STATE ALLOTMENTS.

       Section 102 is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1) by striking ``at least'' and all that 
     follows through the semicolon and inserting ``an amount equal 
     to not less than 90 percent of the allotment shall be 
     available for basic programs under part B of title II;'';
       (B) by striking paragraph (2);
       (C) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs 
     (2) and (3), respectively;
       (D) in paragraph (2), as redesignated, by striking ``8.5'' 
     and inserting ``8'' and further by adding after the semicolon 
     ``and'';
       (E) in paragraph (3), as redesignated--
       (i) by striking ``5'' and inserting ``2'';
       (ii) by striking ``of which--'' and all that follows 
     through ``and'' at the end and inserting the following:

     ``which may be used for the costs of--
       ``(A) developing the State application;
       ``(B) reviewing local applications;
       ``(C) monitoring and evaluating program effectiveness; and
       ``(D) assuring compliance with all applicable Federal 
     laws.''; and
       (F) by striking paragraph (5);
       (2) in subsection (b) by striking ``(a)(4)'' and inserting 
     ``(a)(3)''; and
       (3) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
       ``(c) Rural Reserve.--A State may reserve not more than 10 
     percent of the allotment made under section 102(a)(1) to use 
     for grants to rural areas.
       ``(d) Incentive Awards.--A State may reserve not more than 
     5 percent of the allotment made under section 102(a)(1) to 
     make awards--
       ``(1) to a local eligible recipient that meets or exceeds 
     the State benchmarks described in section 114;
       ``(2) to a local eligible recipient that meets or exceeds 
     the average State graduation rate; or
       ``(3) to assist a local eligible recipient that has 
     significantly failed to meet the State benchmarks described 
     in section 114, or has a graduation rate that is 
     significantly below the average State graduation rate.''

      SEC. 103. INDIAN AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN PROGRAMS.

       Section 103 of the Act is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 103. NATIVE AMERICAN PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Indian Policy.--All programs assisted under this 
     section shall be administered in a manner consistent with the 
     principles of the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
     Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.) and the government-to-
     government relationship between the Federal Government and 
     Indian tribal governments.
       ``(b) Definitions.--As used in this section:
       ``(1) Alaska native.--The term `Alaska Native' means a 
     Native as such term is defined in section 3(b) of the Alaska 
     Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602(b)).
       ``(2) Bureau funded.--The term `Bureau funded school' 
     means--
       ``(A) a Bureau school;
       ``(B) a contract school; or
       ``(C) a school for which assistance is provided under the 
     Tribally Controlled Schools Act of 1988.
       ``(3) Indian, indian tribe, and tribal organization.--The 
     terms `Indian', `Indian tribe', and `tribal organization' 
     have the meanings given such terms in subsections (d), (e), 
     and (l), respectively, of section 4 of the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
       ``(4) Institution of higher education.--The term 
     `institution of higher education' has the meaning given such 
     term in section 1201(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1141(a)).
       ``(5) Native hawaiian and native hawaiian organization.--
     The terms `Native Hawaiian' and `Native Hawaiian 
     organization' have the meanings given such terms in 
     paragraphs (1) and (3), respectively, of section 9212 of the 
     Native Hawaiian Education Act (20 U.S.C. 7912).
       ``(6) Tribally controlled community college.--The term 
     `tribally controlled community college' has the meaning given 
     such term in section 2(a)(4) of the Tribally Controlled 
     Community College Assistance Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 
     1801(a)(4)).
       ``(7) Tribally controlled postsecondary vocational 
     institution.--The term `tribally controlled postsecondary 
     vocational institution' means an institution of higher 
     education that--
       ``(A) is formally controlled, or has been formally 
     sanctioned or chartered, by the governing body of an Indian 
     tribe or Indian tribes;
       ``(B) offers a technical degree or certificate granting 
     program;
       ``(C) is governed by a board of directors or trustees, a 
     majority of whom are Indians;
       ``(D) demonstrates adherence to stated goals, a philosophy, 
     or a plan of operation, that fosters individual Indian 
     economic and self-sufficiency opportunity, including programs 
     that are appropriate to stated tribal goals of developing 
     individual entrepreneurships and self-sustaining economic 
     infrastructures on reservations;
       ``(E) has been in operation for at least 3 years;
       ``(F) holds accreditation with or is a candidate for 
     accreditation by a nationally recognized accrediting 
     authority for postsecondary vocational-technical education; 
     and
       ``(G) enrolls the full-time equivalent of not less than 100 
     students, of whom a majority are Indians.
       ``(c) Program Authorized.--
       ``(1) In general.--From amounts reserved under section 
     101(a)(1)(A)(i), the Secretary shall make grants to Indian 
     tribes, tribal organizations and Alaska Native entities to 
     carry out the authorized programs described in subsection 
     (d), except that such terms shall not include secondary 
     school programs in Bureau funded schools.
       ``(2) Special authority relating to secondary schools 
     operated or supported by the bureau of Indian affairs.--An 
     Indian tribe, a tribal organization, or an Alaska Native 
     entity, that receives funds through a grant made or contract 
     entered into under paragraph (1) may use the funds to provide 
     assistance to a secondary school operated or supported by the 
     Bureau of Indian Affairs to enable such school to carry out 
     vocational-technical education programs.
       ``(d) Authorized Programs.--Funds made available under this 
     section shall be used to carry out vocational-technical 
     education programs consistent with the purposes of this Act.
       ``(e) Grant Application.--In order to receive a grant under 
     this section an entity described in subsection (c) shall 
     submit an application to the Secretary and shall include an 
     assurance that such entity shall comply with the requirements 
     of this Act.
       ``(f) Special Consideration.--The Secretary, in making 
     grants under subsection (c), shall give special consideration 
     to--
       ``(1) grants which involve, coordinate with, or encourage 
     tribal economic development plans; and
       ``(2) applications from tribally controlled community 
     colleges which--
       ``(A) are accredited or are candidates for accreditation by 
     a nationally recognized accreditation organization as an 
     institution of postsecondary vocational-technical education; 
     or
       ``(B) operate vocational-technical education programs that 
     are accredited or are candidates for accreditation by a 
     nationally recognized accreditation organization and issue 
     certificates for completion of vocational-technical education 
     programs.
       ``(g) Consolidation of Funds.--Each entity receiving 
     assistance under this section 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 of 1992 (25 U.S.C 3401 et 
     seq.).
       ``(h) Nonduplicative and Nonexclusive Services.--Nothing in 
     this section shall be construed--
       ``(1) to limit the eligibility of any entity described in 
     subsection (c) to participate in any activity offered by a 
     State or local entity under this title; or
       ``(2) to preclude or discourage any agreement, between any 
     entity described in subsection (c) and any State or local 
     entity, to facilitate the provision of services by such 
     entity or to the population served by such entity.
       ``(i) Native Hawaiian Programs.--From the funds reserved 
     pursuant to section 101(a)(1)(A)(ii), the Secretary is 
     directed to enter into contracts with organizations primarily 
     serving and representing Native Hawaiian Programs which are 
     recognized by the Governor of the State of Hawaii to plan, 
     conduct, and administer programs, or portions thereof, which 
     are authorized by and consistent with the provisions of this 
     section for the benefit of Native Hawaiian Programs.''.

      SEC. 104. TRIBALLY CONTROLLED POSTSECONDARY VOCATIONAL 
                   INSTITUTIONS.

       Part A of title I of the Act is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:

     ``SEC. 104. TRIBALLY CONTROLLED POSTSECONDARY VOCATIONAL-
                   TECHNICAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

       ``(a) Grants Authorized.--The Secretary shall, subject to 
     the availability of appropriations, make grants pursuant to 
     this section to tribally controlled postsecondary vocational-
     technical institutions to provide basic support for the 
     education and training of Indian students.
       ``(b) Use of Grants.--Amounts made available pursuant to 
     this section shall be used for vocational-technical education 
     programs.
       ``(c) Eligible Grant Recipients.--To be eligible for 
     assistance under this section a tribally controlled 
     postsecondary vocational-technical institution shall--
       ``(1) be governed by a board of directors or trustees, a 
     majority of whom are Indians;
       ``(2) have been in operation for at least 3 years;
       ``(3) hold accreditation with or be a candidate for 
     accreditation by a nationally recognized accrediting 
     authority for postsecondary vocational-technical education; 
     and
       ``(4) enroll the full-time equivalent of not less than 100 
     students, of whom a majority are Indians.

[[Page H5422]]

       ``(d) Applications.--Any tribally controlled postsecondary 
     vocational-technical institution that desires to receive a 
     grant under this section shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary in such manner and form as the Secretary may 
     require.
       ``(e) Other Programs.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as specifically provided in this 
     Act, eligibility for assistance under this section shall not 
     preclude any tribally controlled postsecondary vocational-
     technical institution from receiving Federal financial 
     assistance under any program authorized under the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 or any other applicable program for the 
     benefit of institutions of higher education or vocational-
     technical education.
       ``(2) Prohibition on allocation of grant amount.--The 
     amount of any grant for which tribally controlled 
     postsecondary vocational-technical institutions are eligible 
     under this subpart shall not be altered because of funds 
     allocated to any such institution from funds appropriated 
     under the Act of November 2, 1921.
       ``(3) Prohibition on contract denial.--No tribally 
     controlled postsecondary vocational-technical institution for 
     which an Indian tribe has designated a portion of the funds 
     appropriated for the tribe from funds appropriated under the 
     Act of November 2, 1921, may be denied a contract for such 
     portion under the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
     Assistance Act (except as provided in that Act), or denied 
     appropriate contract support to administer such portion of 
     the appropriated funds.
       ``(f) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section:
       ``(1) Indian.--The terms `Indian' and `Indian tribe' have 
     the meanings given such terms in section 2 of the Tribally 
     Controlled Community College Assistance Act of 1978.
       ``(2) Tribally controlled postsecondary vocational-
     technical institution.--The term `tribally controlled 
     postsecondary vocational-technical institution' means an 
     institution of higher education which is formally controlled, 
     or has been formally sanctioned or chartered by the governing 
     body of an Indian tribe or tribes which offers technical 
     degrees or certificate granting programs.
       ``(3) Indian student count.--The term `Indian student 
     count' means a number equal to the total number of Indian 
     students enrolled in each tribally controlled vocational-
     technical institution, determined as follows:
       ``(A) Registrations.--The registrations of Indian students 
     as in effect on October 1 of each year.
       ``(B) Summer term.--Credits or clock hours toward a 
     certificate earned in classes offered during a summer term 
     shall be counted toward the computation of the Indian student 
     count in the succeeding fall term.
       ``(C) Admission criteria.--Credits or clock hours toward a 
     certificate earned in classes during a summer term shall be 
     counted toward the computation of the Indian student count if 
     the institution at which the student is in attendance has 
     established criteria for the admission of such student on the 
     basis of the student's ability to benefit from the education 
     or training offered. The institution shall be presumed to 
     have established such criteria if the admission procedures 
     for such studies include counseling or testing that measures 
     the student's aptitude to successfully complete the course in 
     which the student has enrolled. No credit earned by such 
     student for purposes of obtaining a high school degree or its 
     equivalent shall be counted toward the computation of the 
     Indian student count.
       ``(D) Determination of hours.--Indian students earning 
     credits in any continuing education program of a tribally 
     controlled vocational-technical institution shall be included 
     in determining the sum of all credit or clock hours.
       ``(E) Continuing education.--Credits or clock hours earned 
     in a continuing education program shall be converted to the 
     basis that is in accordance with the institution's system for 
     providing credit for participation in such programs.
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated not more than $4,000,000 for fiscal year 
     1998 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 4 
     succeeding fiscal years to carry out the provisions of this 
     section.''.

       PART B--STATE ORGANIZATIONAL AND PLANNING RESPONSIBILITIES

      SEC. 111. STATE ADMINISTRATION.

       Section 111 of this Act is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1)(A), by striking ``pursuant to 
     section 113(b)(8), section 116, and section 117'';
       (2) by striking subsection (a)(1)(B);
       (3) in subsection (a)(1)(C), by striking ``consultation 
     with'' and all that follows through the semicolon at the end 
     of subsection (a)(1)(C) and inserting ``consultation with the 
     Governor and appropriate agencies, groups, and individuals, 
     including business, industry and representatives of employees 
     involved in the planning, administration, evaluation, and 
     coordination of programs funded under this Act;''; and
       (4) by striking subsections (b) through (g) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(b) List of Programs Assisted.--The State board shall 
     make available to each Private Industry Council established 
     under section 102 of the Job Training Partnership Act within 
     the State a listing of all programs assisted under this 
     Act.''.

      SEC. 112. STATE COUNCIL ON VOCATIONAL EDUCATION.

       Section 112 of the Act is repealed.

      SEC. 113. STATE APPLICATION.

       Section 113 of the Act is amended--
       (1) by redesignating such section as section 112;
       (2) by striking ``plan'' in the section heading 
     and inserting ``application'';
       (3) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``(A)'' and further by 
     striking all that follows after ``Secretary'' and inserting 
     ``an application in such manner and accompanied by such 
     information as the Secretary may require but which, at a 
     minimum, shall be for a 5-year period.'';
       (B) in paragraph (1), by striking subparagraph (B);
       (C) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
       ``(2) The State board shall conduct public hearings in the 
     State, after appropriate and sufficient notice, for the 
     purpose of affording all segments of the public and 
     interested organizations and groups an opportunity to present 
     their views and make recommendations regarding the State 
     application. A summary of such recommendations and the State 
     board's response shall be included with the State 
     application.''; and
       (D) by striking paragraph (3); and
       (4) by striking subsections (b) and (c) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) Contents.--Each State application shall--
       ``(1) describe the vocational-technical education programs 
     that will be carried out with funds received by the State 
     under this Act, including a description of--
       ``(A) the secondary and postsecondary vocational-technical 
     education programs to be carried out at the State level 
     pursuant to section 201, including programs that will be 
     carried out by the State to develop, improve, and expand 
     access to quality, state-of-the-art technology in vocational-
     technical education programs;
       ``(B) the criteria that will be used by the State in 
     approving applications of eligible recipients of funds under 
     this Act; and
       ``(C) how such programs will prepare vocational-technical 
     education students for opportunities in postsecondary 
     education or entry into high skill, high wage jobs;
       ``(2) describe how the State will actively involve parents, 
     teachers, local businesses (including small- and medium-sized 
     businesses) and representatives of employees in the planning, 
     development, and implementation of such vocational-technical 
     education programs;
       ``(3) describe how funds received by the State through the 
     allotment made under section 102 will be allocated among 
     secondary school vocational-technical education, or 
     postsecondary and adult vocational-technical education, or 
     both, including the rationale for such allotment;
       ``(4) describe how the State will--
       ``(A) improve the academic and technical skills of students 
     participating in vocational-technical education programs 
     which includes strengthening the academic component of 
     vocational-technical education programs through the 
     integration of academics with vocational-technical education 
     to ensure learning in the core academic subjects and provide 
     students with strong experience and understanding of all 
     aspects of the industry; and
       ``(B) ensure that students who participate in such 
     vocational-technical education programs are taught to the 
     same challenging academic proficiencies as are provided for 
     all other students;
       ``(5) describe how the State will annually evaluate the 
     effectiveness of such vocational-technical education programs 
     and describe how the State is coordinating such programs to 
     ensure nonduplication with other existing Federal programs;
       ``(6) identify the benchmarks that the State will use to 
     measure the progress of the State, including a description of 
     how such benchmarks will ensure continuous improvement for 
     vocational-technical students in meeting such benchmarks;
       ``(7) describe how the State will--
       ``(A) provide vocational-technical education programs that 
     lead to high skill, high wage careers for members of special 
     populations, displaced homemakers, single parents, and single 
     pregnant women; and
       ``(B) ensure that members of special populations meet State 
     benchmarks established under section 114 and are prepared for 
     postsecondary education, further learning, and high skill, 
     high wage careers;
       ``(8) provide a financial audit of funds received under 
     this Act; and
       ``(9) provide assurances that none of the funds expended 
     under this Act will be used to acquire equipment (including 
     computer software) in any instance in which such acquisition 
     results in a direct financial benefit to any organization 
     representing the interests of the purchasing entity or its 
     employees or any affiliate of such an organization.
       ``(c) Amendments.--The State board may submit amendments to 
     the State application, as necessary, during the 5-year 
     period. Such amendments shall be submitted in accordance with 
     section 113(c).''.

      SEC. 114. SUBMISSION OF STATE APPLICATION.

       Section 114 of the Act is amended--
       (1) by redesignating such section as section 113;
       (2) by striking ``state plan approval'' in the section 
     heading and inserting ``submission of state application'';
       (3) by striking subsections (a) and (b); and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(a) Application.--Each State application shall be 
     submitted to the Secretary by not later than May 1 preceding 
     the beginning of the first fiscal year for which a State 
     application is to be in effect.
       ``(b) Consultation.--The State board shall develop the 
     portion of each State application relating to the amount and 
     uses of any funds proposed to be reserved for adult 
     vocational-technical education, postsecondary vocational-
     technical education, tech-prep education, and secondary 
     vocational-technical education after

[[Page H5423]]

     consultation with the State agency responsible for 
     supervision of community colleges, technical institutes, or 
     other 2-year postsecondary institutions primarily engaged in 
     providing postsecondary vocational-technical education, and 
     the State agency responsible for secondary education. If a 
     State agency finds that a portion of the final State 
     application is objectionable, such agency shall file such 
     objections with the State board. The State board shall 
     respond to any objections of such agency in submitting such 
     application to the Secretary.
       ``(c) Application Submission.--A State application 
     submitted to the Secretary under this section shall be 
     approved by the Secretary unless the Secretary makes a 
     written determination, within 90 days after receiving the 
     application, that the application is in violation of the 
     provisions of this Act.''.

      SEC. 115. ACCOUNTABILITY.

       Part B of title I is amended by inserting after section 
     113, as redesignated, the following:

     ``SEC. 114. ACCOUNTABILITY.

       ``(a) Benchmarks.--To be eligible to receive an allotment 
     under section 102, a State shall develop and identify in the 
     State application submitted under section 113 proposed 
     rigorous and quantifiable benchmarks to measure the statewide 
     progress of the State, which shall include, at a minimum, 
     measures, of--
       ``(1) attainment of challenging State academic 
     proficiencies;
       ``(2) attainment of secondary school diplomas or general 
     equivalency diplomas; and
       ``(3) placement in, retention in, and completion of, 
     postsecondary education or advanced training, or placement 
     and retention in military service, or employment.
       ``(b) Program Improvement and Sanctions.--
       ``(1) State program improvement plan.--If a State fails to 
     meet its State benchmarks as described in the report 
     submitted under subsection (c), the State shall develop and 
     implement a program improvement plan in consultation with 
     appropriate agencies, individuals, and organizations for the 
     first program year succeeding the program year in which the 
     State failed to meet its benchmarks in order to avoid a 
     sanction as provided under paragraph (3).
       ``(2) Local improvement plan.--If an eligible recipient 
     fails to meet its State benchmarks, the eligible recipient 
     shall develop a program improvement plan with appropriate 
     agencies, individuals, and organizations for the succeeding 
     program year.
       ``(3) Sanctions.--
       ``(A) In general.--If a State fails to meet the State 
     benchmarks required under subsection (a), and has not 
     implemented an improvement plan as described in paragraph 
     (1), has not demonstrated improvement in meeting its 
     benchmarks, or has failed to meet its benchmarks for 2 or 
     more consecutive years, the Secretary may, after notice and 
     opportunity for a hearing, or withhold from the State all, or 
     a portion of, the State's allotment under this Act. The 
     Secretary may waive the sanction due to exceptional or 
     uncontrollable circumstances such as a natural disaster or a 
     precipitous and unforeseen decline in the financial resources 
     of the State.
       ``(B) Funds resulting from reduced allotments.--The amount 
     of funds retained by the Secretary as a result of a reduction 
     in an allotment made under subparagraph (A) shall be 
     redistributed to other States in accordance with section 101.
       ``(c) Report.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Information.--Each State that receives an allotment 
     under section 102 shall annually prepare and submit to the 
     Secretary a report on how the State is performing on State 
     benchmarks that relate to vocational-technical education 
     programs. In preparing the report, the State may include 
     information on such additional vocational-technical education 
     benchmarks as the State may establish.
       ``(B) Special populations.--The report submitted by the 
     State in accordance with subparagraph (A) shall include a 
     description of how special populations, displaced homemakers, 
     single parents, and single pregnant women participating in 
     vocational-technical education programs have met the 
     vocational-technical education benchmarks established by the 
     State.
       ``(2) Information dissemination.--The Secretary shall make 
     the information contained in such reports available to the 
     general public through publication and other appropriate 
     methods which may include electronic communication.
       ``(3) Benchmark performance.--Each local recipient shall 
     make available to the general public information regarding 
     how the local recipient is performing in regard to the State 
     benchmarks.''.

      SEC. 116. PROGRAM EVALUATION.

       Sections 115, 116, 117, and 118 of the Act are repealed.
    TITLE II--BASIC STATE GRANTS FOR VOCATIONAL-TECHNICAL EDUCATION

      SEC. 201. STATE PROGRAMS.

       (a) Heading.--The heading for title II is amended to read 
     as follows:
  ``TITLE II--BASIC STATE GRANTS FOR VOCATIONAL-TECHNICAL EDUCATION''.
       (b) Programs.--Section 201 of the Act is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``102(a)(3)'' and 
     inserting ``102(a)(2)'';
       (2) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
       ``(b) Required Uses of Funds.--The programs described in 
     subsection (a) shall include--
       ``(1) an assessment of the vocational-technical education 
     programs carried out with funds under this Act that includes 
     an assessment of how the needs of special populations are 
     being met and how such programs will ensure that the 
     benchmarks established under section 114 are being met;
       ``(2) developing, improving, or expanding the use of 
     technology in vocational-technical education which may 
     include--
       ``(A) training of vocational-technical education personnel 
     to use State-of-the art technology, which may include 
     distance learning;
       ``(B) providing vocational-technical education students 
     with the academic and technical skills that lead to entry 
     into the high technology and telecommunications field; or
       ``(C) encouraging schools to work with high tech industries 
     to offer voluntary internships and mentoring programs;
       ``(3) professional development programs, including--
       ``(A) inservice and preservice training in state-of-the-art 
     vocational-technical education programs and techniques; and
       ``(B) support of education programs for teachers of 
     vocational-technical education in public schools and other 
     public school personnel who are involved in the direct 
     delivery of educational services to vocational education 
     students to ensure that such teachers stay current with the 
     needs, expectations, and methods of industry; and
       ``(4) support for vocational-technical education programs 
     that improve the academic and technical skills of students 
     participating in vocational-technical education programs by 
     strengthening the academic component of such vocational-
     technical education programs through the integration of 
     academics with vocational-technical education to ensure 
     learning in the core academic subjects.'';
       (3) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
       ``(c) Permissible Uses of Funds.--The programs under 
     subsection (a) may include--
       ``(1) technical support for eligible recipients;
       ``(2) support for tech-prep programs;
       ``(3) support for programs for single parents, displaced 
     homemakers, single pregnant women, and individuals in 
     nontraditional occupations that lead to high skill, high wage 
     careers;
       ``(4) support for cooperative education;
       ``(5) support for vocational student organizations;
       ``(6) support for public charter schools operating 
     secondary vocational-technical education programs;
       ``(7) support for vocational-technical education programs 
     that offer experience in, and understanding of, all aspects 
     of the industry for which students are preparing to enter;
       ``(8) support for family and consumer sciences programs; 
     and
       ``(9) support for corrections vocational-technical 
     education.''; and
       (4) by adding after subsection (c) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(d) Restriction on Uses of Funds.--A State that receives 
     funds under section 102(a)(2) may not use any of such funds 
     to pay administrative costs.''.

      SEC. 202. SECONDARY, POSTSECONDARY, AND ADULT VOCATION-
                   TECHNICAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS.

       Part B of title II of the Act is amended to read as 
     follows:

  ``PART B--SECONDARY, POSTSECONDARY, AND ADULT VOCATIONAL-TECHNICAL 
                           EDUCATION PROGRAMS

                  ``Subpart 1--Within-State Allocation

     ``SEC. 221. DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS TO SECONDARY SCHOOL 
                   PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) General Rule.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     section and section 223, each State shall distribute the 
     funds received under this Act and available in fiscal year 
     1998 for secondary school vocational-technical education to 
     local educational agencies within the State as follows:
       ``(1) From 70 percent of such funds, each local educational 
     agency shall be allocated an amount that bears the same 
     relationship to such 70 percent as the amount such local 
     educational agency was allocated under section 1124 or such 
     section's predecessor authority of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 in the preceding fiscal year 
     bears to the total amount received under such section by 
     local educational agencies in the State in such year.
       ``(2) From 20 percent of such funds, each local educational 
     agency shall be allocated an amount that bears the same 
     relationship to such 20 percent as the number of students 
     with disabilities who have individualized education programs 
     under section 614(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act who are served by such local educational agency 
     in the preceding fiscal year bears to the total number of 
     such students served by local educational agencies in the 
     State in such year.
       ``(3) From 10 percent of such funds, each local educational 
     agency shall be allocated an amount that bears the same 
     relationship to such 10 percent as the number of students 
     enrolled in schools and adults enrolled in training programs 
     under the jurisdiction of such local educational agency in 
     the preceding fiscal year bears to the number of students 
     enrolled in schools and adults enrolled in training programs 
     under the jurisdiction of all local educational agencies in 
     the State in such year.
       ``(b) Allocation for Subsequent Fiscal Years.--In fiscal 
     year 1999, and the succeeding 3 fiscal years, each State 
     shall distribute the funds available in any such fiscal year 
     for secondary school vocational-technical education programs 
     to local educational agencies within the State as follows:
       ``(1) Population.--50 percent shall be allocated to such 
     agencies in proportion to the number of individuals aged 15 
     to 19, inclusive, who reside in the school district served by 
     such agency for the preceding fiscal year compared to the 
     total number of such individuals who reside in the school 
     districts served by all local educational agencies in the 
     State for such preceding year.

[[Page H5424]]

       ``(2) Income.--50 percent shall be allocated to such 
     agencies in proportion to the number of individuals aged 15 
     through 19, inclusive, who reside in the school district 
     served by such agency from families with incomes below the 
     poverty line (as defined by the Office of Management and 
     Budget and revised annually in accordance with section 673(2) 
     of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 
     9902(2))) applicable to a family of the size involved for the 
     fiscal year for which the determination is made compared to 
     the number of such individuals in all the local educational 
     agencies in the State.
       ``(c) Waiver for More Equitable Distribution.--The 
     Secretary may waive the application of subsection (b) in the 
     case of any State that submits to the Secretary an 
     application for such a waiver that--
       ``(1) demonstrates that the formula described in subsection 
     (b) does not result in a distribution of funds to local 
     educational agencies within the State that have the greatest 
     economic need and that an alternative formula would result in 
     such a distribution; and
       ``(2) includes a proposal for such an alternative formula.
       ``(d) Minimum Grant Amount.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), no 
     local educational agency shall be eligible for a grant under 
     this part unless the amount allocated to such agency under 
     subsections (a) and (b) is not less than $7,500. A local 
     educational agency may enter into a consortium with other 
     local educational agencies for purposes of meeting the 
     minimum allocation requirement of this paragraph.
       ``(2) Waiver.--The State shall waive the application of 
     paragraph (1) in any case in which the local educational 
     agency--
       ``(A)(i) is located in a rural, sparsely populated area, or
       ``(ii) is a public charter school operating secondary 
     vocational-technical education programs; and
       ``(B) demonstrates that the agency is unable to enter into 
     a consortium for purposes of providing services under this 
     part.
       ``(3) Redistribution.--Any amounts that are not allocated 
     by reason of paragraph (1) or paragraph (2) shall be 
     redistributed to local educational agencies that meet the 
     requirements of paragraph (1) or (2) in accordance with the 
     provisions of this section.
       ``(e) Limited Jurisdiction Agencies.--
       ``(1) In general.--In applying the provisions of 
     subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d), no State receiving 
     assistance under this Act shall allocate funds to a local 
     educational agency that serves only elementary schools, but 
     shall distribute such funds to the local educational agency 
     or regional educational agency that provides secondary school 
     services to secondary school students in the same attendance 
     area.
       ``(2) Secondary school jurisdiction.--The amount to be 
     allocated under paragraph (1) to a local educational agency 
     that has jurisdiction only over secondary schools shall be 
     determined based on the number of students that were enrolled 
     in such secondary schools in the previous year from the 
     elementary schools involved.
       ``(f) Allocations to Area Vocational-Technical Education 
     Schools and Educational Service Agencies.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each State shall distribute funds 
     available for secondary school vocational-technical education 
     programs to the appropriate area vocational-technical 
     education school or educational service agency in any case in 
     which the area vocational-technical education school or 
     educational service agency and the local educational agency 
     concerned--
       ``(A) have formed or will form a consortium for the purpose 
     of receiving funds under this section; or
       ``(B) have entered into or will enter into a cooperative 
     arrangement for such purpose.
       ``(2) Allocation basis.--If an area vocational-technical 
     education school or educational service agency meets the 
     requirements of paragraph (1), then the amount that would 
     otherwise be distributed to the local educational agency 
     shall be allocated to the area vocational-technical education 
     school, the educational service agency, and the local 
     educational agency based on each school's or entity's 
     relative share of students who are attending vocational-
     technical education programs (based, if practicable, on the 
     average enrollment for the prior 3 years).
       ``(3) Appeals procedure.--The State board shall establish 
     an appeals procedure for resolution of any dispute arising 
     between a local educational agency and an area vocational-
     technical education school or an educational service agency 
     with respect to the allocation procedures described in this 
     section, including the decision of a local educational agency 
     to leave a consortium or terminate a cooperative arrangement.
       ``(g) Consortium Requirements.--
       ``(1) Alliance.--Any local educational agency receiving an 
     allocation that is not sufficient to conduct a program which 
     meets the requirements of section 225 is encouraged to--
       ``(A) form a consortium or enter into a cooperative 
     agreement with an area vocational-technical education school 
     or educational service agency offering programs that meet the 
     requirements of section 225;
       ``(B) transfer such allocation to the area vocational-
     technical education school or educational service agency; and
       ``(C) be of sufficient size, scope, and quality as to be 
     effective.
       ``(2) Funds to consortium.--Funds allocated to a consortium 
     formed to meet the requirements of this paragraph shall be 
     used only for purposes and programs that are mutually 
     beneficial to all members of the consortium and can be used 
     only for programs authorized under this Act. Such funds may 
     not be reallocated to individual members of the consortium 
     for purposes or programs benefiting only one member of the 
     consortium.
       ``(h) Data.--The Secretary shall collect information from 
     States regarding the specific dollar allocations made 
     available by the State for vocational-technical education 
     programs under subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) and how 
     these allocations are distributed to local educational 
     agencies, area vocational-technical education schools, 
     educational services agencies, and eligible institutions 
     within the State in accordance with this section.

     ``SEC. 222. DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS FOR POSTSECONDARY AND ADULT 
                   VOCATIONAL-TECHNICAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) Allocation.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in subsections (b) 
     and (c) and section 223, each State shall distribute funds 
     available in any fiscal year for postsecondary and adult 
     vocational-technical education programs to eligible 
     institutions or consortia of eligible institutions within the 
     State.
       ``(2) Formula.--Each eligible institution or consortium of 
     eligible institutions shall receive an amount that bears the 
     same relationship to the amount of funds available under such 
     section as the number of individuals who are Pell Grant 
     recipients or recipients of assistance from the Bureau of 
     Indian Affairs and are enrolled in programs meeting the 
     requirements of section 225 offered by such institution or 
     consortium in the preceding fiscal year bears to the number 
     of such recipients enrolled in such programs within the State 
     for such year.
       ``(3) Consortium requirements.--
       ``(A) In general.--In order for a consortium of eligible 
     institutions described in paragraph (2) to receive assistance 
     pursuant to such paragraph, such consortium shall operate 
     joint projects that--
       ``(i) provide services to all postsecondary institutions 
     participating in the consortium; and
       ``(ii) are of sufficient size, scope, and quality as to be 
     effective.
       ``(B) Funds to consortium.--Funds allocated to a consortium 
     formed to meet the requirements of this section shall be used 
     only for purposes and programs that are mutually beneficial 
     to all members of the consortium and can be used only for 
     programs authorized under this Act. Such funds may not be 
     reallocated to individual members of the consortium for 
     purposes or programs benefiting only one member of the 
     consortium.
       ``(b) Waiver for More Equitable Distribution.--The 
     Secretary may waive the application of subsection (a) in the 
     case of any State that submits to the Secretary of Education 
     an application for such a waiver that--
       ``(1) demonstrates that the formula described in subsection 
     (a) does not result in a distribution of funds to the 
     institutions or consortia within the State that have the 
     highest numbers of economically disadvantaged individuals and 
     that an alternative formula would result in such a 
     distribution; and
       ``(2) includes a proposal for such an alternative formula.
       ``(c) Minimum Grant Amount.--
       ``(1) In general.--No funds provided to any institution or 
     consortium under this section shall be for an amount that is 
     less than $20,000.
       ``(2) Redistribution.--Any amounts that are not distributed 
     by reason of paragraph (1) shall be redistributed to eligible 
     institutions or consortia of eligible institutions in 
     accordance with the provisions of this section.
       ``(d) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section--
       ``(1) the term `eligible institution' means an institution 
     of higher education as such term is defined in section 
     1201(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, a local 
     educational agency serving adults, or an area vocational 
     education school serving adults that offers or will offer a 
     program that meets the requirements of section 225 and seeks 
     to receive assistance under this part; and
       ``(2) the term `Pell Grant' means a recipient of financial 
     aid under subpart 1 of part A of title IV of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965.

     ``SEC. 223. SPECIAL RULES FOR VOCATIONAL-TECHNICAL EDUCATION.

       ``(a) Special Rule for Minimal Allocation.--
       ``(1) General authority.--Notwithstanding the provisions of 
     sections 221 and 222 and in order to make a more equitable 
     distribution of funds for programs serving the areas of 
     greatest economic need, for any program year for which a 
     minimal amount is made available by a State for distribution 
     under section 221 or 222, such State may distribute such 
     minimal amount for such year--
       ``(A) on a competitive basis; or
       ``(B) through any alternative method determined by the 
     State.
       ``(2) Minimal amount.--For purposes of this section, the 
     term `minimal amount' means not more than 15 percent of the 
     total amount made available for distribution under this part.
       ``(b) Redistribution.--
       ``(1) In general.--In any academic year that a local 
     educational agency or eligible institution does not expend 
     all of the amounts it is allocated for such year under 
     section 221 or 222, such recipient shall return any 
     unexpended amounts to the State to be reallocated under 
     section 221 or 222, as appropriate.
       ``(2) Redistribution of amounts returned late in an 
     academic year.--In any academic year in which amounts are 
     returned to the State under section 221 or 222 and the State 
     is unable to reallocate such amounts according to such 
     sections in time for such amounts to be expended in such 
     academic year, the State shall retain such amounts for 
     distribution in combination with amounts provided under this 
     title for the following academic year.
       ``(c) Construction.--Nothing in section 221 or 222 shall be 
     construed--
       ``(1) to prohibit a local educational agency (or a 
     consortium thereof) that receives assistance

[[Page H5425]]

     under section 221, from working with an eligible recipient 
     (or consortium thereof) that receives assistance under 
     section 222, to carry out secondary school vocational-
     technical education programs in accordance with this title;
       ``(2) to prohibit an eligible recipient (or consortium 
     thereof) that receives assistance under section 222, from 
     working with a local educational agency (or consortium 
     thereof) that receives assistance under section 221, to carry 
     out postsecondary and adult vocational-technical education 
     programs in accordance with this title; or
       ``(3) to require a charter school that is a local 
     educational agency to jointly establish its eligibility 
     unless the charter school is explicitly permitted to do so 
     under the State's charter school statute.
       ``(d) Consistent Application.--For purposes of this 
     section, the State board shall provide funds to charter 
     schools that offer vocational-technical education programs 
     that are public schools of the local educational agency in 
     the same manner as it provides those funds to other schools 
     of the local educational agency. Such program within a 
     charter school shall be of sufficient size, scope, and 
     quality as to be effective.

     ``SEC. 224. LOCAL APPLICATION FOR VOCATIONAL-TECHNICAL 
                   EDUCATION PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) Application Required.--Any eligible recipient 
     desiring financial assistance under this part shall, in 
     accordance with requirements established by the State board, 
     submit an application to the State board. Such application 
     shall cover the same period of time as the period of time 
     applicable to the State application submitted under section 
     112.
       ``(b) Contents.--The State board shall determine 
     requirements for local applications, except that each 
     application shall--
       ``(1) describe how the vocational-technical education 
     programs required under section 225(b) will be carried out 
     with funds received under this part;
       ``(2) describe how students participating in vocational-
     technical education programs carried out with funds under 
     this Act will reach the State benchmarks as established under 
     section 114;
       ``(3) describe how the eligible recipient will--
       ``(A) improve the academic and technical skills of students 
     participating in vocational-technical education programs by 
     strengthening the academic component of such programs through 
     the integration of academics with vocational-technical 
     education programs through a coherent sequence of courses to 
     ensure learning in the core academic subjects; and
       ``(B) ensure that students who participate in such 
     vocational-technical education programs are taught to the 
     same challenging academic proficiencies as are provided for 
     all other students;
       ``(4) describe how parents, students, teachers, business 
     and representatives of employees are involved in the 
     development and implementation of vocational-technical 
     education programs assisted under this Act; and
       ``(5) provide assurances that the eligible recipient will 
     provide a vocational-technical education program that is of 
     such size, scope, and quality as to bring about improvement 
     in the quality of vocational-technical education programs.

     ``SEC. 225. LOCAL USES OF FUNDS.

       ``(a) General Authority.--Each eligible recipient that 
     receives a grant under this part shall use such funds to 
     improve vocational-technical education programs.
       ``(b) Requirements for Uses of Funds.--Funds made available 
     under this part shall be used to provide vocational-technical 
     education programs that--
       ``(1) strengthen the academic and technical skills of 
     students participating in vocational-technical education 
     programs by strengthening the academic component of such 
     programs through the integration of academics with 
     vocational-technical education programs through a coherent 
     sequence of courses to ensure learning in the core academic 
     subjects;
       ``(2) develop, improve, or expand the use of technology in 
     vocational-technical education which may include--
       ``(A) training of vocational-technical education personnel 
     to use State-of-the art technology, which may include 
     distance learning;
       ``(B) providing vocational-technical education students 
     with the academic and technical skills that lead to entry 
     into the high technology and telecommunications field; or
       ``(C) encouraging schools to work with high tech industries 
     to offer voluntary internships and mentoring programs;
       ``(3) provide professional development programs, 
     including--
       ``(A) inservice training in state-of-the-art vocational-
     technical education programs and techniques; and
       ``(B) support of education programs for teachers of 
     vocational-technical education in public schools and other 
     public school personnel who are involved in the direct 
     delivery of educational services to vocational education 
     students, to ensure that such teachers stay current with the 
     needs, expectations, and methods of industry;
       ``(4) support vocational-technical education programs that 
     improve the academic and technical skills of students 
     participating in vocational-technical education programs by 
     strengthening the academic component of such vocational-
     technical education programs through the integration of 
     academics with vocational-technical education to ensure 
     learning in the core academic subjects; and
       ``(5) provide an assessment of the vocational-technical 
     education programs carried out with funds under this Act, 
     including an assessment of how the needs of special 
     populations are being met, and how such programs will ensure 
     that the benchmarks established under section 114 are being 
     met.
       ``(c) Permissible Activities.--The vocational-technical 
     education programs described in subsection (b) may be used 
     for--
       ``(1) establishing agreements between secondary and 
     postsecondary vocational-technical education programs in 
     order to provide postsecondary education and training 
     opportunities for students participating in such vocational-
     technical programs, such as tech-prep programs;
       ``(2) involving parents, business, and representatives of 
     employees in the design and implementation of vocational-
     technical education programs authorized under this Act;
       ``(3) providing career guidance and counseling;
       ``(4) providing work related experience, such as 
     internships, cooperative education, school-based enterprises, 
     entrepreneurship, and job shadowing that are related to 
     vocational-technical education programs;
       ``(5) programs for single parents, displaced homemakers, 
     and single pregnant women;
       ``(6) local education and business partnerships;
       ``(7) vocational student organizations;
       ``(8) mentoring and support services;
       ``(9) leasing, purchasing, or upgrading of equipment; and
       ``(10) establishing effective programs and procedures to 
     enable vocational-technical education program participants 
     and their parents to participate directly in decisions that 
     influence the programs, including providing information and 
     assistance for informed effective participation.
       ``(d) Administrative Costs.--Each eligible recipient 
     receiving funds under this part shall not use more than 2 
     percent of the funds for administrative costs associated with 
     the administration of the grant.''.

      SEC. 203. REPEAL OF PART C.

       Part C of title II is repealed.
                  TITLE III--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

      SEC. 301. EVALUATION; RESEARCH, DEMONSTRATIONS AND 
                   DISSEMINATION.

       (a) Heading.--The heading for title III is amended to read 
     as follows:
                ``TITLE III--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT''.
       (b) Part A.--Part A of title III is amended to read as 
     follows:

                   ``PART A--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

     ``SEC. 301. EVALUATION; RESEARCH; DEMONSTRATIONS; AND 
                   DISSEMINATION.

       ``(a) Single Plan.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall develop a single 
     plan for evaluation and assessment, research, demonstrations, 
     and dissemination with regard to the vocational-technical 
     education programs assisted under this Act.
       ``(2) Plan.--Such plan shall--
       ``(A) identify the vocational-technical education programs 
     the Secretary will carry out under this section;
       ``(B) describe how the Secretary will evaluate such 
     vocational-technical education programs in accordance with 
     subsection (b); and
       ``(C) include such other information as the Secretary 
     determines to be appropriate.
       ``(b) Evaluation and Assessment.--
       ``(1) In general.--From amounts made available under 
     subsection (g), the Secretary shall provide for the conduct 
     of an independent evaluation and assessment of vocational-
     technical education programs under this Act through studies 
     and analyses conducted independently through grants and 
     contracts awarded on a competitive basis.
       ``(2) Contents.--Such evaluation and assessment of 
     vocational-technical education programs shall include 
     descriptions of--
       ``(A) the extent to which State, local, and tribal entities 
     have developed, implemented, or improved State and local 
     vocational-technical education programs;
       ``(B) the degree to which the expenditures at the Federal, 
     State, local, and tribal levels address improvement in 
     vocational-technical education programs;
       ``(C) the extent to which vocational-technical education 
     programs succeed in preparing individuals participating in 
     such programs for entry into postsecondary education, further 
     learning, or high skill, high wage careers; and
       ``(D) the effect of State benchmarks, performance measures, 
     and other measures of accountability on the delivery of 
     vocational-technical education programs.
       ``(c) Information Collection and Report.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may collect and 
     disseminate information from States regarding State efforts 
     to meet State benchmarks described in section 114.
       ``(2) Report.--The Secretary shall gather any information 
     collected pursuant to paragraph (1) and submit a report to 
     the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Labor and Human 
     Resources of the Senate.
       ``(d) Research.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall award grants, on a 
     competitive basis, to an institution of higher education, a 
     public or private organization or agency, or a consortium of 
     such institutions, organizations, or agencies to establish a 
     national research center or centers--
       ``(A) to carry out research for the purpose of developing, 
     improving, and identifying the most successful methods for 
     successfully addressing the education, employment, and 
     training needs of participants in vocational-technical 
     education programs;
       ``(B) to carry out research to increase the effectiveness 
     and improve the implementation of vocational-technical 
     education programs, including conducting research and 
     development and studies providing longitudinal information or 
     formative evaluation with respect to vocational-technical 
     education programs;

[[Page H5426]]

       ``(C) to carry out such other programs as the Secretary 
     determines to be appropriate to achieve the purposes of this 
     Act.
       ``(2) Summary.--The Secretary shall provide an annual 
     report summarizing the evaluations and assessments described 
     in subsection (b), and the research conducted pursuant to 
     this subsection, and the findings of such evaluations and 
     assessments, and research, to the Committee on Education and 
     the Workforce of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate.
       ``(e) Demonstrations and Dissemination.--
       ``(1) Demonstration program.--The Secretary is authorized 
     to carry out demonstration vocational-technical education 
     programs, to replicate model vocational-technical education 
     programs, to disseminate best practices information, and to 
     provide technical assistance upon request of a State, for the 
     purposes of developing, improving, and identifying the most 
     successful methods and techniques for providing vocational-
     technical education programs assisted under this Act.
       ``(2) Demonstration partnership.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out a 
     demonstration partnership project involving a 4-year, 
     accredited postsecondary institution, in cooperation with 
     local public education organizations, volunteer groups, and 
     private sector business participants to provide program 
     support, and facilities for education, training, tutoring, 
     counseling, employment preparation, specific skills training 
     in emerging and established professions, retraining of 
     military medical personnel, retraining of individuals 
     displaced by corporate or military restructuring, migrant 
     workers, and other individuals who otherwise would not have 
     access to such services, through multi-site, multi-State 
     distance learning technologies.
       ``(B) Program.--Such program may be carried out directly or 
     through grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, or through 
     the national center or centers.
       ``(f) Definition.--As used in this section, the term 
     `institution of higher education' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 1201(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1141(a)).
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary 
     for fiscal year 1998 and such sums as may be necessary for 
     each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years to carry out this 
     part.''.

      SEC. 302. TECH-PREP EDUCATION.

       Part B of title III is amended to read as follows:

                     ``PART C--TECH-PREP EDUCATION

     ``SEC. 321. TECH-PREP EDUCATION.

       ``(a) Program Authorized.--The State board, in accordance 
     with the provisions of this part, shall award grants to 
     consortia on a competitive basis or on the basis of a formula 
     determined by the State board, for tech-prep education 
     programs.
       ``(b) General Authority.--Each grant recipient shall use 
     amounts provided under the grant to develop and operate a 4-
     year tech-prep education program.
       ``(c) Contents of Program.--Any such program shall--
       ``(1) be carried out under an articulation agreement 
     between the participants in the consortium;
       ``(2) consist of the 2 or 4 years of secondary school 
     preceding graduation and 2 years of higher education, or an 
     apprenticeship program of at least 2 years following 
     secondary instruction, with a common core of required 
     proficiency in mathematics, science, communications, and 
     technologies designed to lead to an associate degree or 
     postsecondary certificate in a specific career field;
       ``(3) include the development of tech-prep education 
     program components appropriate to the needs of the consortium 
     participants;
       ``(4) include in-service training for teachers that--
       ``(A) is designed to train vocational-technical teachers to 
     effectively implement tech-prep education programs;
       ``(B) provides for joint training for teachers in the tech-
     prep consortium; and
       ``(C) may provide such training in weekend, evening, and 
     summer sessions, institutes, or workshops;
       ``(5) include training programs for counselors designed to 
     enable counselors to more effectively--
       ``(A) provide information to students regarding tech-prep 
     education programs;
       ``(B) support student progress in completing such programs; 
     and
       ``(C) provide information on related employment 
     opportunities;
       ``(6) provide equal access to the full range of technical 
     preparation programs to individuals who are members of 
     special populations, including the development of tech-prep 
     education program services appropriate to the needs of such 
     individuals; and
       ``(7) provide for preparatory services that assist 
     participants in such programs.
       ``(d) Additional Authorized Activities.--Each such program 
     may--
       ``(1) provide for the acquisition of tech-prep education 
     program equipment; and
       ``(2) acquire technical assistance from State or local 
     entities that have successfully designed, established and 
     operated tech-prep programs.

     ``SEC. 322. APPLICATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--Each consortium that desires to receive 
     a grant under this part shall submit an application to the 
     State board, as appropriate, at such time and in such manner 
     as the State board shall prescribe.
       ``(b) Plan.--Each application submitted under this section 
     shall contain a 5-year plan for the development and 
     implementation of programs under this part.
       ``(c) Approval.--The State board shall approve applications 
     based on their potential to create an effective tech-prep 
     education program as provided for in this section.
       ``(d) Special Consideration.--The State board, as 
     appropriate, shall give special consideration to applications 
     which--
       ``(1) provide for effective employment placement activities 
     or transfer of students to 4-year baccalaureate degree 
     programs;
       ``(2) are developed in consultation with business, 
     industry, institutions of higher education, and 
     representatives of employees;
       ``(3) address effectively the issues of dropout prevention 
     and reentry and the needs of special populations.

     ``SEC. 323. REPORT.

       ``Each State that receives a grant under this part shall 
     annually prepare and submit to the Secretary a report on the 
     effectiveness of their Tech-Prep programs, including how 
     competitive grants were awarded within the State.

     ``SEC. 324. ALLOTMENT.

       ``The Secretary shall allot funds under this part in each 
     fiscal year in the same manner as funds are allotted under 
     section 101(a)(2).

     ``SEC. 325. AUTHORIZATION.

       ``(a) In General.--From amounts made available under 
     section 3(a), 10 percent shall be used to carry out this part 
     for fiscal year 1998 and for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal 
     years.
       ``(b) Minimum Amount.--No State shall receive a grant of 
     less than $200,000 under this part in any fiscal year.''.

      SEC. 303. VOCATIONAL-TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND OCCUPATIONAL 
                   INFORMATION DATA SYSTEMS.

       Part C of title IV is amended--
       (1) by striking the part heading and inserting the 
     following:

        ``PART B--VOCATIONAL-TECHNICAL EDUCATION INFORMATION'';

       (2) by redesignating sections 421 through 424 as sections 
     311 through 314, respectively.
       (3) by amending subsection (e) of section 312, as 
     redesignated under paragraph (2), to read as follows:
       ``(e) There are authorized to be appropriated for each of 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2002 such sums as may be necessary 
     to carry out this part.'';
       (4) in section 313(a)(1), as redesignated in paragraph (2), 
     by striking ``421'' and inserting ``311''; and
       (5) by adding at the end of such part the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 315. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated for this part 
     such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 1998 and such 
     sums as may be necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal 
     years.''.

      SEC. 304. REPEALS.

       (a) Title III.--Part C of title III of the Act, as the Act 
     was in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, is repealed.
       (b) Title IV.--The heading for title IV and parts A, B, E, 
     and F of such title of the Act are repealed.
                      TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS

      SEC. 401. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

       Title V of the Act is amended to read as follows:
                     ``TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS

              ``PART A--FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

     ``SEC. 401. PAYMENTS.

       ``The Secretary shall pay from its allotment under section 
     101 to each State for any fiscal year for which the State has 
     a State application submitted in accordance with section 113 
     (including any amendment to such application) the Federal 
     share of the costs of carrying out the State application.

     ``SEC. 402. FISCAL REQUIREMENTS.

       ``(a) Supplement Not Supplant.--Funds received under this 
     Act shall be used to supplement, not supplant, the amount of 
     funds that would, in the absence of such Federal funds, be 
     made available from non-Federal sources for vocational-
     technical education programs.
       ``(b) Maintenance of Effort.--
       ``(1) Determination.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) 
     and (C), no payments shall be made under this title for any 
     program year to a State for vocational-technical education 
     programs unless the Secretary of Education determines that 
     the fiscal effort per student or the aggregate expenditures 
     of such State for vocational-technical programs for the 
     fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which the 
     determination is made, equaled or exceeded such effort or 
     expenditures for vocational-technical education programs, for 
     the second program year preceding the fiscal year for which 
     the determination is made.
       ``(B) Computation.--In computing the fiscal effort or 
     aggregate expenditures pursuant to subparagraph (A), the 
     Secretary of Education shall exclude capital expenditures, 
     special one-time project costs, similar windfalls, and the 
     cost of pilot programs.
       ``(C) Decrease in federal support.--If the amount made 
     available for vocational-technical education programs under 
     this Act for a fiscal year is less than the amount made 
     available for vocational-technical education programs under 
     this Act for the preceding fiscal year, then the fiscal 
     effort per student or the aggregate expenditures of a State 
     required by subparagraph (B) for such preceding fiscal year 
     shall be decreased by the same percentage as the percentage 
     decrease in the amount so made available.
       ``(2) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the requirements of 
     paragraph (1) (with respect to not more than 5 percent of 
     expenditures required for the preceding fiscal year by any 
     State) for 1 program year only, after making a

[[Page H5427]]

     determination that such waiver would be equitable due to 
     exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances affecting the 
     ability of the State to meet such requirements, such as a 
     natural disaster or an unforeseen and precipitous decline in 
     financial resources. No level of funding permitted under such 
     a waiver may be used as the basis for computing the fiscal 
     effort or aggregate expenditures required under this 
     paragraph for years subsequent to the year covered by such 
     waiver. The fiscal effort or aggregate expenditures for the 
     subsequent years shall be computed on the basis of the level 
     of funding that would, but for such waiver, have been 
     required.

     ``SEC. 403. AUTHORITY TO MAKE PAYMENTS.

       ``Any authority to make payments or to enter into contracts 
     under this Act shall be available only to such extent or in 
     such amounts as are provided in advance appropriation Acts.

     ``SEC. 404. NATIONAL AND STATE FUNDING.

       ``Nothing in this Act shall be construed to permit, allow, 
     encourage, or authorize any Federal control over any aspect 
     of any private, religious, or home school, whether or not a 
     home school is treated as a private school or home school 
     under State law. This section shall not be construed to bar 
     private, religious, or home schools from participation in 
     programs or services under the Act.

     ``SEC. 405. FREEDOM TO CHOOSE.

       ``None of the funds made available under this Act shall be 
     used to--
       ``(1) require any individual to choose or pursue a specific 
     career path or major;
       ``(2) compel any individual to enter into a specific course 
     of study which requires as a condition or completion, 
     attainment of federally-funded or endorsed industry 
     recognized skills or standards; or
       ``(3) require any individuals to meet or obtain federally-
     funded or endorsed industry recognized skills, certificates, 
     or standards.

     ``SEC. 406. LIMITATION FOR CERTAIN STUDENTS.

       ``None of the funds received under this Act may be used to 
     provide vocational-technical education programs to students 
     prior to the seventh grade, except that equipment and 
     facilities purchased with funds under this Act may be used by 
     such students.

     ``SEC. 407. FEDERAL LAWS GUARANTEEING CIVIL RIGHTS.

       ``Nothing in this Act shall be construed to be inconsistent 
     with applicable Federal laws guaranteeing civil rights.

     ``SEC. 408. AUTHORIZATION OF SECRETARY.

       ``For the purposes of increasing and expanding the use of 
     technology in vocational-technical education instruction, 
     including the training of vocational-technical education 
     personnel as provided in title II, the Secretary is 
     authorized to receive funds collected by the Federal 
     Government from fees for the use of property, rights-of-way, 
     and easements under the control of Federal departments and 
     agencies for the placement of telecommunications services 
     that are dependent, in whole or in part, upon the utilization 
     of general spectrum rights for the transmission or reception 
     of such services.

               ``PART B--STATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

     ``SEC. 411. JOINT FUNDING.

       ``(a) General Authority.--Funds made available to States 
     under this Act may be used to provide additional funds under 
     an applicable program if--
       ``(1) such program otherwise meets the requirements of this 
     Act and the requirements of the applicable program;
       ``(2) such program serves the same individuals that are 
     served under this Act;
       ``(3) such program provides services in a coordinated 
     manner with services provided under this Act; and
       ``(4) such funds would be used to supplement, and not 
     supplant, funds provided from non-Federal sources.
       ``(b) Applicable Program.--For the purposes of this 
     section, the term `applicable program' means any program 
     under any of the following provisions of law:
       ``(1) Section 123, title II, and title III of the Job 
     Training Partnership Act.
       ``(2) The Wagner-Peyser Act.
       ``(c) Use of Funds as Matching Funds.--For the purposes of 
     this section, the term `additional funds' does not include 
     the use of funds as matching funds.

     ``SEC. 412. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO INDUCE OUT-OF-
                   STATE RELOCATION OF BUSINESSES.

       ``No funds provided under this Act shall be used for the 
     purpose of directly providing incentives or inducements to an 
     employer to relocate a business enterprise from one State to 
     another State if such relocation would result in a reduction 
     in the number of jobs available in the State where the 
     business enterprise is located before such incentives or 
     inducements are offered.

     ``SEC. 413. STATE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.

       ``For each fiscal year for which a State receives 
     assistance under this Act, the State shall provide from non-
     Federal sources for costs the State incurs for administration 
     of programs under this Act an amount that is not less than 
     the amount provided by the State from non-Federal sources for 
     such costs for the preceding fiscal year.

     ``SEC. 414. LIMITATION ON FEDERAL REGULATIONS.

       ``The Secretary may issue regulations under this Act only 
     to the extent necessary to administer and ensure compliance 
     with the specific requirements of this Act.

     ``SEC. 415. STUDENT ASSISTANCE AND OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) Attendance Costs Not Treated as Income or 
     Resources.--The portion of any student financial assistance 
     received under this Act that is made available for attendance 
     costs described in subsection (b) shall not be considered as 
     income or resources in determining eligibility for assistance 
     under any other program funded in whole or in part with 
     Federal funds.
       ``(b) Attendance Costs.--The attendance costs described in 
     this subsection are--
       ``(1) tuition and fees normally assessed a student carrying 
     the same academic workload as determined by the institution, 
     and including costs for rental or purchase of any equipment, 
     materials, or supplies required of all students in the same 
     course of study; and
       ``(2) an allowance for books, supplies, transportation, 
     dependent care, and miscellaneous personal expenses for a 
     student attending the institution on at least a half-time 
     basis, as determined by the institution.
       ``(c) Costs of Vocational-Technical Education Services.--
     Funds made available under title II may be used to pay for 
     the costs of vocational-technical education services required 
     in an individualized education plan developed pursuant to 
     section 614(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act and services necessary to meet the requirements of 
     section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 with respect to 
     ensuring equal access to vocational-technical education.

                         ``PART C--DEFINITIONS

     ``SEC. 421. DEFINITIONS.

       ``Except as otherwise specified in this Act, as used in 
     this Act:
       ``(1) Administration.--The term `administration' means 
     programs of a State necessary for the proper and efficient 
     performance of its duties under this Act, including 
     supervision, but does not include curriculum development 
     programs, personnel development, or research programs.
       ``(2) All aspects of the industry.--The term `all aspects 
     of the industry' means strong experience in, and 
     comprehensive understanding of, the industry that individuals 
     are preparing to enter.
       ``(3) Area vocational-technical education school.--The term 
     `area vocational-technical education school' means--
       ``(A) a specialized secondary school used exclusively or 
     principally for the provision of vocational-technical 
     education to individuals who are available for study in 
     preparation for entering the labor market;
       ``(B) the department of a secondary school exclusively or 
     principally used for providing vocational-technical education 
     in not fewer than five different occupational fields to 
     individuals who are available for study in preparation for 
     entering the labor market;
       ``(C) a technical institute or vocational-technical 
     education school used exclusively or principally for the 
     provision of vocational-technical education to individuals 
     who have completed or left secondary school and who are 
     available for study in preparation for entering the labor 
     market, if the institute or school admits as regular students 
     both individuals who have completed secondary school and 
     individuals who have left secondary school; or
       ``(D) the department or division of a junior college, or 
     community college, that operates under the policies of the 
     State board and that provides vocational-technical education 
     in not fewer than five different occupational fields leading 
     to immediate employment but not necessarily leading to a 
     baccalaureate degree, if the department or division admits as 
     regular students both individuals who have completed 
     secondary school and individuals who have left secondary 
     school.
       ``(4) Cooperative education.--The term `cooperative 
     education' means a method of instruction of education for 
     individuals who, through written cooperative arrangements 
     between a 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, which alternation shall be planned and 
     supervised by the school and employer so that each 
     contributes to the education and employability of the 
     individual, and may include an arrangement in which 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) Displaced homemaker.--The term `displaced homemaker' 
     means an individual who--
       ``(A) has worked primarily without remuneration to care for 
     a home and family, and for that reason has diminished 
     marketable skills; or
       ``(B) is a parent whose youngest dependent child will 
     become ineligible to receive assistance under title I of the 
     Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation 
     Act of 1996 not later than 2 years after the date of which 
     the parent applies for assistance under this title.
       ``(6) Educational service agency.--The term `educational 
     service agency' means a regional public multiservice agency 
     authorized by State statute to develop and manage a service 
     or program and provide the service or program to a local 
     educational agency.
       ``(7) Eligible recipient.--The term `eligible recipient' 
     means a local educational agency, an area vocational-
     technical education school, an educational service agency, an 
     institution of higher education (as such term is defined in 
     section 1201(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1141(a))), and a consortium of such entities.
       ``(8) Local educational agency.--The term `local 
     educational agency' has the meaning given such term in 
     section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801).
       ``(9) Outlying area.--The term `outlying area' means the 
     United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of 
     the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and 
     the Republic of Palau.
       ``(10) Representatives of employees.--The term 
     `representatives of employees' means--

[[Page H5428]]

       ``(A) individuals who have been elected by organizations, 
     associations, or a network of similar institutions to 
     represent the economic interests of employees at a 
     significant segment of workplaces; or
       ``(B) individuals from organizations, associations, or a 
     network of similar institutions, with expertise to represent, 
     or experience representing, the interests of employees with 
     respect to vocational-technical education.
       ``(11) Secondary school.--The term `secondary school' has 
     the meaning given the term in section 14101 of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801).
       ``(12) Special populations.--The term `special populations' 
     means individuals with disabilities, economically 
     disadvantaged individuals, individuals of limited English 
     proficiency, and individuals participating in nontraditional 
     training and employment.
       ``(13) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of Education.
       ``(14) State.--The term `State' means each of the several 
     States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and 
     the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
       ``(15) Tech-prep program.--The term `tech-prep program' 
     means a program of study that--
       ``(A) combines at least 2 years of secondary education (as 
     determined under State law) and 2 years of postsecondary 
     education in a nonduplicative sequential course of study;
       ``(B) strengthens the applied academic component of 
     vocational-technical education through the integration of 
     academic and vocational-technical instruction;
       ``(C) provides technical preparation in an area such as 
     engineering technology, applied science, a mechanical, 
     industrial, or practical art or trade, agriculture, a health 
     occupation, business, or applied economics;
       ``(D) builds student competence in mathematics, science, 
     and communications through applied academics in a coherent 
     sequence of courses; and
       ``(E) leads to an associate degree or a certificate in a 
     specific career field and to high skill, high wage employment 
     or further education.
       ``(16) Vocational-technical education.--The term 
     `vocational-technical education' means organized educational 
     programs that--
       ``(A) offer a sequence of courses that provide individuals 
     with the academic knowledge and skills the individuals need 
     to prepare for further education and careers in current or 
     emerging employment sectors; and
       ``(B) include competency-based applied learning that 
     contributes to the academic knowledge, higher-order reasoning 
     and problem-solving skills, work attitudes, general 
     employability skills, and occupation-specific skills, of an 
     individual.
       ``(17) Vocational student organization.--The term 
     `vocational student organization' means an organization, for 
     individuals enrolled in programs of vocational-technical 
     education programs, that engages in programs as an integral 
     part of the instructional component of such programs, which 
     organization may have State and national units.''.

     SEC. 402. REPEAL OF SMITH-HUGHES VOCATIONAL EDUCATION ACT.

       The Act of February 23, 1917 (39 Stat. 929; 20 U.S.C. 11) 
     (commonly known as the ``Smith-Hughes Vocational Education 
     Act'') is repealed.

     SEC. 403. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Except as otherwise provided, the repeals and amendments 
     made by this Act shall take effect on the date of the 
     enactment of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational-Technical 
     Education Act Amendments of 1997.

  The CHAIRMAN. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
Chair will accord priority in recognition to a Member offering an 
amendment that he has had printed in the designated place in the 
Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
  Are there any amendments to the bill?


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Goodling

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

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Goodling:
       Page 3, after line 18, insert the following:
       (3) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
       ``(c) National Programs.--None of the funds made available 
     under this section for programs authorized under titles I, 
     II, and part C of title III, shall be used for any program 
     authorized under part A of title III.

       Page 3, line 19, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(4)'' and 
     strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.
       Page 9, strike lines 12 through 14, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(c) Rural and Urban Reserve.--A State may reserve not 
     more than 5 percent of the allotment made under section 
     102(a)(1) to use for grants to rural areas and not more than 
     5 percent of such allotment to use for grants to urban 
     areas.''.
       Beginning on page 9, strike lines 15 and all that follows 
     through page 10, line 2.
       Page 10, after line 2, insert the following:
       ``(e) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) the term `rural area' means an area that is not in a 
     metropolitan statistical area;
       ``(2) the term `urban area' means an area that serves a 
     central city in a metropolitan statistical area; and
       ``(3) the terms `central city' and `metropolitan 
     statistical area' have the same meanings given such terms in 
     section 10952 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965.''.
       Page 16, after line 10, insert the following (and 
     redesignate any subsequent subsections accordingly):
       ``(c) Amount of Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the sums appropriated for any fiscal 
     year for grants under this section are not sufficient to pay 
     in full the total amount which approved applicants are 
     eligible to receive under this section for such fiscal year, 
     the Secretary shall first allocate to each such applicant 
     which received funds under this part for the preceding fiscal 
     year an amount equal to 100 percent of the product of the per 
     capita payment for the preceding fiscal year and such 
     applicant's Indian student count for the current program 
     year, plus an amount equal to the actual cost of any increase 
     to the per capita figure resulting from inflationary 
     increases to necessary costs beyond the institution's 
     control.
       ``(2) Per capita determination.--For the purposes of 
     paragraph (1), the per capita payment for any fiscal year 
     shall be determined by dividing the amount available for 
     grants to tribally controlled postsecondary vocational 
     technical institutions under this part for such program year 
     by the sum of the Indian student counts of such institutions 
     for such program year. The Secretary shall, on the basis of 
     the most accurate data available from the institutions, 
     compute the Indian student count for any fiscal year for 
     which such count was not used for the purpose of making 
     allocations under this section.
       Page 22, strike line 13, and insert the following:
       (D) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
       ``(3) The State board shall, for secondary vocational-
     technical education programs, establish effective activities 
     and procedures, by which parents, students, teachers, and 
     area residents concerned will be able to participate in State 
     and local decisions that influence programs under this Act, 
     and ensure that such individuals are given access to the 
     information needed to use such procedures.''.
       Page 23, line 5, strike ``and''.
       Page 23, line 9, strike the semicolon and insert ``in 
     current and emerging occupations; and''.
       Page 23, after line 9, insert the following:
       ``(D) how funds will be used to improve or develop new 
     vocational-technical education courses.''.
       Page 23, line 13, strike ``and''.
       Page 23, line 14, before ``of'' insert ``, and 
     evaluation''.
       Page 24, line 1, strike ``component'' and insert ``and 
     vocational components''.
       Page 24, line 5, after ``academic'' insert ``and 
     vocational''.
       Page 24, line 14, after ``describe'', insert ``, to the 
     extent practicable,''.
       Page 25, strike lines 8 and 9 and insert the following:
       ``(8) describe what steps the State shall take to involve 
     representatives of local school boards in the development of 
     the State's benchmarks;
       ``(9) provide a financial audit of funds received under 
     this Act which may be included as part of an audit of other 
     Federal or State programs; and''.
       Page 25, line 10, strike ``(9)'' and insert ``(10)''.
       Page 27, strike line 11 and insert the following:
       ``(a) Benchmarks.--
       ``(1) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive an allot-''.
       Page 27, strike lines 17 through 24 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(A) attainment of challenging State academic and 
     vocational proficiencies;
       ``(B) attainment of secondary school diplomas or general 
     equivalency diplomas; and
       ``(C) placement in, retention in, and completion of, 
     postsecondary education or advanced training, or placement 
     and retention in military service, or employment.
       ``(2) Existing benchmarks.--If a State has developed State 
     performance indicators or benchmarks for skills according to 
     challenging academic or vocational proficiencies consistent 
     with this Act, the State may use such performance indicators 
     or benchmarks in measuring the progress of vocational-
     technical education students.''.
       Page 30, line 3, strike ``have met'' and insert ``have 
     performed in meeting''.
       Page 32, line 10, before the semicolon insert ``, effective 
     teaching skills based on research, and effective practices to 
     improve parental and community involvement''.
       Page 32, line 22 and page 33, line 2, after ``academic'' 
     insert ``and vocational''.
       Page 33, line 8, strike ``support for'' and insert 
     ``establishing agreements between secondary and postsecondary 
     vocational-technical education programs in order to provide 
     postsecondary education and training opportunities for 
     students participating in such vocational-technical education 
     programs, such as''.
       Page 33, line 23, strike ``and''.
       Page 33, line 25, strike the period and all that follows 
     and insert a semicolon.
       Page 33, after line 25, insert the following:
       ``(10) support for education and business partnerships; and
       ``(11) support to improve or develop new vocational-
     technical education courses.''; and
       Page 34, strike line 7 and insert ``TIONAL-TECHNICAL 
     EDUCATION PROGRAMS.''.

[[Page H5429]]

       Page 36, strike line 1 and all that follows through page 
     37, line 2, and insert the following:
       ``(b) Special Distribution Rules for Subsequent Fiscal 
     Years.--
       ``(1) Fiscal years 1999 and 2000.--In fiscal years 1999 and 
     2000, each State shall distribute the funds available under 
     this Act in such fiscal years for secondary school 
     vocational-technical education programs to local educational 
     agencies within the State as follows:
       ``(A) Lesser or equal amounts.--Each State shall distribute 
     all funds allocated by the State for each such fiscal year 
     for secondary school vocational-technical education programs 
     in amounts less than or equal to the total amount of funds 
     distributed pursuant to section 231(a) of this Act as such 
     section was in effect on the day before the date of the 
     enactment of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational-Technical 
     Education Act Amendments of 1997 for such programs in fiscal 
     year 1997 as follows:
       ``(i) 30 percent shall be allocated to such agencies in 
     proportion to the number of individuals aged 15 to 19, 
     inclusive, who reside in the school district served by such 
     agency for the preceding fiscal year compared to the total 
     number of such individuals who reside in the school districts 
     served by all local educational agencies in the State for 
     such preceding year.
       ``(ii) 70 percent shall be allocated to such agencies in 
     proportion to the number of individuals aged 15 through 19, 
     inclusive, who reside in the school district served by such 
     agency from families with incomes below the poverty line (as 
     defined by the Office of Management and Budget and revised 
     annually in accordance with section 673(2) of the Community 
     Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2))) applicable to a 
     family of the size involved for the fiscal year for which the 
     determination is made compared to the number of such 
     individuals in all the local educational agencies in the 
     State.
       ``(B) Greater amounts.--Each State shall distribute all 
     funds allocated by the State for each such fiscal year for 
     secondary school vocational-technical education programs in 
     amounts greater than the total amount of funds distributed 
     pursuant to section 231(a) of this Act as such section was in 
     effect on the day before the date of the enactment of the 
     Carl D. Perkins Vocational-Technical Education Act Amendments 
     of 1997 for such programs in fiscal year 1997 as follows:
       ``(i) 40 percent shall be allocated to such agencies in 
     proportion to the number of individuals aged 15 to 19, 
     inclusive, who reside in the school district served by such 
     agency for the preceding fiscal year compared to the total 
     number of such individuals who reside in the school districts 
     served by all local educational agencies in the State for 
     such preceding year.
       ``(ii) 60 percent shall be allocated to such agencies in 
     proportion to the number of individuals aged 15 through 19, 
     inclusive, who reside in the school district served by such 
     agency from families with incomes below the poverty line (as 
     defined by the Office of Management and Budget and revised 
     annually in accordance with section 673(2) of the Community 
     Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2))) applicable to a 
     family of the size involved for the fiscal year for which the 
     determination is made compared to the number of such 
     individuals in all the local educational agencies in the 
     State.
       ``(2) Fiscal year 2001.--Each State shall distribute funds 
     allocated under this Act in fiscal year 2001 for secondary 
     school vocational-technical education programs to local 
     educational agencies within the State as follows:
       ``(A) 35 percent shall be allocated to such agencies in 
     proportion to the number of individuals aged 15 to 19, 
     inclusive, who reside in the school district served by such 
     agency for the preceding fiscal year compared to the total 
     number of such individuals who reside in the school districts 
     served by all local educational agencies in the State for 
     such preceding year.
       ``(B) 65 percent shall be allocated to such agencies in 
     proportion to the number of individuals aged 15 through 19, 
     inclusive, who reside in the school district served by such 
     agency from families with incomes below the poverty line (as 
     defined by the Office of Management and Budget and revised 
     annually in accordance with section 673(2) of the Community 
     Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2))) applicable to a 
     family of the size involved for the fiscal year for which the 
     determination is made compared to the number of such 
     individuals in all the local educational agencies in the 
     State.
       ``(3) Fiscal year 2002.--Each State shall distribute funds 
     allocated under this Act in fiscal year 2002 for secondary 
     school vocational-technical education programs to local 
     educational agencies within the State as follows:
       ``(A) 40 percent shall be allocated to such agencies in 
     proportion to the number of individuals aged 15 to 19, 
     inclusive, who reside in the school district served by such 
     agency for the preceding fiscal year compared to the total 
     number of such individuals who reside in the school districts 
     served by all local educational agencies in the State for 
     such preceding year.
       ``(B) 60 percent shall be allocated to such agencies in 
     proportion to the number of individuals aged 15 through 19, 
     inclusive, who reside in the school district served by such 
     agency from families with incomes below the poverty line (as 
     defined by the Office of Management and Budget and revised 
     annually in accordance with section 673(2) of the Community 
     Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)) applicable to a 
     family of the size involved for the fiscal year for which the 
     determination is made compared to the number of such 
     individuals in all the local educational agencies in the 
     State.
       Page 37, strike lines 7 through 11, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(1) demonstrates that a proposed alternative formula more 
     effectively targets funds on the basis of poverty (as defined 
     by the Office of Management and Budget and revised annually 
     in accordance with section 673(2) of the Community Services 
     Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)) to local educational 
     agencies within the State than the formula described in 
     subsection (b);''.
       Page 37, line 20, strike ``$7,500'' and insert ``$10,000''.
       Page 41, line 5, insert ``and'' after the semicolon.
       Page 41, line 9, strike ``be'' and insert ``operate 
     programs that are''.
       Page 44, line 12, strike ``$20,000'' and insert 
     ``$35,000''.
       Page 47, line 8, strike ``that'' and insert ``which 
     provides vocational-technical education programs and''.
       Page 47, line 17, after ``Such'' insert ``vocational-
     technical education''.
       Page 48, line 18, strike ``component'' and insert ``and 
     vocational components''.
       Page 48, line 22, after ``academic'' insert ``and 
     vocational''.
       Page 49, line 5, strike ``and implementation'' and insert 
     ``, implementation, and evaluation''.
       Page 49, line 6, before the semicolon insert ``, and how 
     these individuals are effectively informed about, and 
     assisted in understanding, the requirements of this Act,''.
       Page 49, line 18, strike ``provide'' and insert 
     ``support''.
       Page 49, beginning on line 22, strike ``components'' and 
     insert ``and vocational components''.
       Page 50, line 2, after ``academic'' insert ``and 
     vocational''.
       Page 50, line 20, before the semicolon insert ``, effective 
     teaching skills based on research, and effective practices to 
     improve parental and community involvement''.
       Page 50, line 25, strike ``vocational'' and insert 
     ``vocational-technical''.
       Page 51, beginning on line 18, strike ``The'' and all that 
     follows through ``subsection (b)'' on line 19, and insert 
     ``Funds made available under this part''.
       Page 52, line 4, strike ``and implementation'' and insert 
     ``, implementation, and evaluation''.
       Page 52, line 7, after ``and'' insert ``academic''.
       Page 52, line 18, strike ``and''.
       Page 52, line 24, strike the period and insert a semicolon.
       Page 52, after line 24, insert the following:
       ``(11) teacher preparation programs which assist 
     individuals who are interested in becoming vocational-
     technical education instructors, including individuals with 
     experience in business and industry;
       ``(12) improving or developing new vocational-technical 
     education courses; and
       ``(13) support for family and consumer sciences programs.
       Page 55, line 1, after ``expenditures'' insert ``of funds 
     provided under this Act''.
       Page 55, strike line 14 and insert the following:
       ``(c) Collection of Information and Report.--''.
       Page 56, line 19, after the semicolon insert ``and''.
       Page 56, after line 19 insert the following:
       ``(C) to carry out research that can be used to improve 
     teaching and learning in the vocational-technical education 
     classroom;''.
       Page 56, line 20, strike ``(C)'' and insert ``(D)'' and 
     strike ``programs'' and insert ``research''.
       Page 59, line 10, strike ``4-year'' and insert ``4 or 6-
     year''.
       Page 62, line 22, strike ``$200,000'' and insert 
     ``$250,000''.
       Page 64, line 2, strike ``Part C'' and insert ``Parts C, D, 
     E, F, G, and H''.
       Page 64, line 4, strike ``is'' and insert ``are''.
       Page 65, lines 5 and 14, strike ``program'' and insert 
     ``fiscal''.
       Page 65, line 21, strike ``similar windfalls,''.
       Page 67, line 18, before the semicolon insert ``or to 
     participate in any vocational-technical education program''.
       Page 67, line 20, strike ``or'' and insert ``of''.
       Page 67, line 22, strike ``or'' after the semicolon.
       Page 67, line 24, after ``or'' insert ``federally''.
       Page 67, line 25, strike the period and insert ``, unless 
     the participant has selected and is participating in a 
     program or course of study that requires, as a condition of 
     completion, attainment of an industry-recognized skill or 
     standard; or''.
       Page 67, after line 25, insert the following:
       ``(4) to require any individual to obtain a federally 
     funded or endorsed certificate of mastery.''.
       Page 68, after line 21, insert the following:

     ``SEC. 409. PARTICIPATION OF PRIVATE SCHOOL PERSONNEL.

       ``A State or local educational agency which uses funds 
     under this Act for inservice and preservice vocational-
     technical education professional development programs for 
     vocational-technical education teachers, administrators, and 
     other personnel may,

[[Page H5430]]

     upon request, permit the participation in such programs of 
     vocational-technical education teachers, administrators, and 
     other personnel in nonprofit private schools offering 
     vocational-technical education programs located in the 
     geographical area served by such agency.''.
       Page 70, line 6, strike ``For'' and insert ``(a) General 
     Rule.--Except as provided in subsection (b), for''.
       Page 70, after line 11, insert the following:
       ``(b) Exception.--If the amount made available for 
     administration of programs under this Act for a fiscal year 
     is less than the amount made available for administration of 
     programs under this Act for the preceding fiscal year, the 
     amount the State is required to provide from non-Federal 
     sources for costs the State incurs for administration of 
     programs under this Act shall be the same percentage as the 
     amount made available for administration of programs under 
     this Act.
       Page 73, after line 21, insert the following (and 
     redesignate any subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
       ``(4) Career guidance and academic counseling.--The term 
     `career guidance and academic counseling' means providing 
     individuals with information access on career awareness and 
     planning for their occupational and academic future which 
     shall involve career options, financial aid, and 
     postsecondary options.
       Page 74, line 2, after ``related'' insert ``vocational-
     technical education''.
       Page 77, beginning on line 13, strike ``through applied 
     academics'' and insert ``(including through applied 
     academics)''.
       Page 78, line 2, strike ``employment sectors'' and insert 
     ``occupations which require other than a baccalaureate or an 
     advanced degree''.

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, a manager's 
amendment, that would modify the within State secondary funding formula 
to distribute funds in 1998 by the current law formula, in 1999 and 
2000 by a formula based 70 percent on poverty, 30 percent on population 
with a hold harmless at the 1997 funding level. Any additional funds 
above the 1997 level will be distributed by a formula based 60 percent 
on poverty, 40 percent on population. In the year 2001 all funds are 
allocated by a formula based 65 percent on poverty, 35 percent on 
population. And in the year 2002 all funds are allocated by a formula 
based on 60 percent poverty, 40 percent population.
  The amendment will raise the minimum grant amount from $7,500 to 
$10,000 for secondary programs, and from $20,000 to $35,000 for 
postsecondary programs. It would modify the 10-percent rural reserve 
and would strike the 5 percent for incentive grant awards. The 
amendment would further modify the secondary alternative formula 
language to allow funds to be targeted to areas of greater poverty. The 
Chairman's amendment would raise the small State minimum grant award 
for technology prep to $250,000 and would insert language prohibiting 
the use of funds authorized for State grants to be used for national 
programs. Part C through H of title III are repealed. Language is added 
to increase the involvement of parents in vocational--technial 
education programs. Language asking States to describe how they will 
involve local school boards in the development of the State's 
benchmarks is included and the amendment would add language allowing 
nonprofit private schools who have secondary vocational-technical 
education programs, to be able to participate in vocational-technical 
education professional development activities. Finally, the amendment 
would make other modifying and technical changes to the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Goodling amendment, the manager's amendment, because it does allow 
States to reserve 5 percent of their Federal funds to help rural areas 
improve vocational education, and unlike our urban Members, rural 
residents often do not have the option of hopping on a subway or a bus 
to get to their needed services. Sometimes we have to drive many, many 
miles to even to get the most basic of services.
  Many of Nebraska's rural communities are grappling with some pretty 
dramatic State education funding changes. At risk of course is 
vocational education, which provides opportunities for young people to 
get the job skills and learn about the technologies in the business 
world.
  In my State we have a very unique problem. We have a labor shortage. 
Our unemployment rate today is about 2.3 percent. Many businesses have 
wanted to expand or locate in my State only to find that we do not have 
enough skilled people for them to employ. That is why targeting 
vocational funds to rural areas might very well help attract and retain 
existing businesses.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling] and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Riggs], and the staff for all of the hard work that has gone into 
this legislation. I would encourage my colleagues to support the 
Goodling amendment as well as the bill.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, and I rise to 
discuss a provision of the amendment that is offered by the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], and a cornerstone of this amendment 
is the changes that it will make to the secondary substate former 
provisions which have been agreed upon in a bipartisan fashion, and the 
formula which is included in the reported bill strongly deemphasizes, 
in my estimation, poverty and allows the States to reserve up to 15 
percent of local moneys for an undefined purpose and subsequently was 
completely unacceptable to us on our side of the aisle.
  In contrast, the manager of the amendment will gradually institute a 
formula over a 5-year period which is slightly less targeted toward 
poverty than in current law but still is adequate. In doing this, the 
formula provisions will protect current funding streams to ensure that 
school districts, whether represented by a Democrat or a Republican, 
will continue to operate quality vocational education programs.

                              {time}  1130

  In addition, the amendment would ensure that States who wish to waive 
the provision of this formula would have to develop one that better 
targets poverty to gain the approval of the Secretary of Education. 
Coupled with this alternative formula provision is the ability of 
States to target both rural and urban areas through grants and increase 
minimum grant amounts for both secondary and postsecondary recipients.
  While many, including myself, would have wanted to maintain the 
formula in current law, I believe both sides view this as a compromise 
which we could all support. We on this side support the gentleman's 
amendment, and I urge all my colleagues to do likewise.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to my colleagues that we 
worked very diligently to arrive at this bipartisan compromise. This 
bipartisan compromise, as included in the manager's amendment, really 
is the result of weeks and weeks of very intensive negotiations. It 
came about as a result of literally a last-minute, 11th-hour proposal 
made by our Democratic colleagues yesterday.
  However, I want to point out that what we have done here effectively 
is to meet halfway. Current law sends money down to local school 
districts for secondary programs on a formula that is based roughly on 
30-percent population and 70-percent poverty. The 70 percent poverty 
factor is a proxy for the current title I variable and the 30-percent 
population factor is a proxy for the 20-percent IDEA and 10-percent 
population factors in current law.
  In our committee bill we proposed splitting the funds for secondary 
programs on a 50/50 poverty-population formula. What the Chairman has 
proposed, and which has met with agreement on the other side of the 
aisle, is a new substate formula based 40 percent on population and 60 
percent on poverty. This will be gradually phased in over the life of 
the bill.
  However, what I want to stress to my colleagues and this is really 
critical in view of some of the amendments that may be coming up later 
today on this legislation, that any additional funds above the 1997 
level would be distributed, beginning in fiscal year 1999, on a new 
formula which is based 60 percent on poverty, 40 percent on population.
  So, that is to say, that to the extent we can have additional moneys 
going down to the local level and to the extent we can secure any 
additional appropriations for Perkins vocational-technical education 
programs, beginning in 1999 those moneys will go down to the local 
school district by a formula that is based 60 percent poverty--40 
percent population.

[[Page H5431]]

  If any amendment comes up later today that would effectively reduce 
the amount of money--reduce from the 90 percent of the funds that are 
going locally--then that amendment would have the effect of basically 
upsetting this very delicate agreement that we have arrived at in a 
bipartisan fashion with respect to the sub-State formula.
  In the Chairman's manager's amendment, we have come up with an 
agreement that allows 10 percent of the funds to be targeted to rural 
and urban areas--a maximum of 5 percent for rural areas and 5 percent 
for urban areas. But we should not overlook the concerns we heard from 
some of our witnesses regarding suburban areas.
  We all recognize the problems of urban cities, and I daresay that 
those urban school districts are fairly well represented on the 
Democratic side of the aisle. They have some very forceful and 
articulate advocates on our Committee. Suburban schools have many of 
the same problems that urban school districts face today, very similar 
problems in fact: drugs, gangs, youth violence. Those problems are 
being found, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Peterson] pointed 
out, in rural areas and, as I am stressing now, in suburban areas as 
well as urban areas.
  I mentioned in my opening remarks that we held a field hearing across 
the Potomac River in northern Virginia Fairfax County, VA is a county 
that most Members are familiar with because of its proximity to 
Washington, DC. I want to stress that whereas in 1990, 8.7 percent of 
the children in Fairfax County schools were considered living in 
poverty, today, in 1997, that number has risen to 18.3 percent--an 
average annual increase of 15 percent.
  One other point I want to make and that concerns reducing the minimum 
grant amount. I am very glad that we were able, again, to arrive at a 
bipartisan agreement with our Democrat colleagues on this issue. We 
heard during our hearings that there is a need to try to spread this 
money more equitably around the country. A lot of the Perkins dollars 
simply are not getting into certain areas and communities of the 
country.
  By lowering the minimum grant amount in current law from $15,000 to 
$10,000 for secondary programs, one effectively cutting the minimum 
grant amount by one-third. We are driving more money to more school 
districts at the local level, using those Federal taxpayer dollars to 
leverage State and local dollars that are going into public education 
specifically for vocational-technical education programs.
  Again, I am pleased that our Democratic colleagues were able to 
arrive at an agreement with us on this particular issue, and I urge 
support of the manager's amendment.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill before us, 
and in support of the amendment before us, but also in support of 
moving this bill from the House floor and our body to conference, where 
we hope it can even undergo further improvements.
  I rise in support of this legislation for a number of reasons. One is 
because so many people today do not go on to graduate from a 4-year 
college or university and need this help through this particular 
legislation; second, because in a global economy where more and more 
businesses are doing their business overseas, where more and more of 
our workers are needing lifetime skills and not just learning between 
18 and 22, we need to make sure that programs like this are targeted to 
the most vulnerable in our society and targeted for a lifetime of 
learning, not just for a particular couple of years or time period.
  Those are very, very important reasons why we need the legislation. 
The world is changing. We need to target the help to help our 
businesses compete, to help our young people learn new skills, and to 
help them learn these skills for a lifetime.
  I also think we have had a number of improvements in this bill 
through the subcommittee process and the full committee process and now 
with the administration amendments. We have maintained the tech prep 
program which is very critical for the State of Indiana and helps 
prepare some of our youngest, most talented and most vulnerable people 
to get the necessary skills in Indiana to stay in Indiana and 
contribute to the business, to the work force, to the plant, and 
ultimately, to the economy.
  Second, we have been able to strengthen provisions addressing 
professional development in this bill so we continue to work with the 
teachers that need to enhance their abilities to teach young people in 
different ways as to the changing world and the changing machines and 
computers they are working with. That is a very key ingredient in this 
bill.
  Third, we are training the personnel to use technology and long-
distance learning capabilities more and more through the language in 
this bill. We have heard from testimony throughout the last couple of 
months that long-distance learning and E rate and a host of other 
things are going to be very, very important, not only to train young 
people but for equity in learning, to make sure that some of the 
schools that are in inner-city areas that cannot afford the long-
distance learning machines and technology also get access to that 
technology.
  Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, we need to do more there, more through 
enforcing the E rate that was recently passed by the FCC. We need to do 
more in terms of technology and getting this technology into schools 
that cannot afford it. We need to do more in terms of the fairness and 
the equity. But this is a beginning in this bill. I support that, and 
hopefully we can do more in conference.
  Last, Mr. Chairman, I think one of my biggest concerns about this 
legislation is the funding mechanism. I want to make sure that we have 
the funding formula more and more oriented toward making sure that the 
most vulnerable people in our society, those that need this assistance 
and education the most, those people that are trying to get off 
welfare, that they get the skills for a good education and training to 
stay off those welfare rolls. We need a funding formula that drives 
this assistance in education and training to those people. Instead of 
making it population-based, we need to drive it more toward the poverty 
rate and those that need it.
  We are starting to do that. I hope we do even more of that in the 
conference coming up with the Senate. It is similar to disaster 
assistance. If we had a disaster assistance bill on the floor that was 
supposed to go to those people in North Dakota that just experienced a 
disaster, but we said no, we are not going to base this on the disaster 
or the flooding, we are going to base it on the population so people in 
California and Florida will get it just as people in North Dakota will 
get it, that would not make a whole lot of sense.
  So let us try to drive this formula, the funding formula, in 
conference more and more toward those in poverty, those that need it; 
those schools that really need the resources to address those people to 
get the education and training, both for their dignity, for their 
futures and their family's futures, but also to help fix the welfare 
problem that we have in this society today, too.
  We are making great strides. We need to continue to be fair and 
equitable. I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation and continue 
to improve it in conference.
  Mr. PAYNE. I move to strike the requisite number of words, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment, and overall stand to 
support the vocational education bill which is so important as part of 
our Federal education system. This act provides our students with the 
tools to be prepared for a trade or career directly following high 
school.
  As has been indicated, every student is not going on to college. The 
intention of these programs is to teach young people a trade while 
allowing students to be academically prepared for postsecondary 
education. Giving our students viable options for the future is very 
critical for the economic and social development of our Nation.
  It is for that reason that I am pleased that the concern that I 
raised during the committee markup regarding reserves for only rural 
districts has been addressed. I appreciate the subcommittee chair for 
allowing the position that I had that the bill before the House today 
includes a 5-percent reserve for

[[Page H5432]]

both urban and rural areas who display need.
  The additional pool of funds will allow students in regions of our 
country, where a college education is unfortunately just not 
economically an option, to have vocational education programs best 
suited for their future.
  I would also like to offer my sincere strong support for the Mink-
Morella-Sanchez-Woolsey amendment to provide a hold harmless for 
programs serving displaced homemakers, single parents, and pregnant 
women, and programs that promote gender equity.
  Opponents of this provision claim that States can offer these 
programs at the present time if they decide to do so. However, prior to 
when the Perkins Act required the States to have gender equity 
programs, only 1 percent, let me state it again, only 1 percent of 
State grants went to displaced homemakers and supportive services. The 
history of this provision proves that these programs will not be funded 
if the Mink amendment is not included in this bill. So I urge Members 
of the House to support this very important amendment.
  Sadly, this will leave members of our population who are struggling 
to support families and to stay off of welfare, as we talk of from 
welfare to work, this will not give the opportunity to women to be 
trained in specific fields. It will also leave young women in high 
schools across the country with little encouragement to participate in 
vocational education programs that increase the chance of them 
attaining a job with a future when they graduate.
  As we attempt to move this country from welfare to work, I find it 
strange that job training programs such as the Perkins Act would ignore 
the female population that constitutes a large majority of people who 
are currently relying on public assistance who will have to move to 
work.

                              {time}  1145

  Therefore, I urge my colleagues in the House on both sides to fully 
support the Mink-Morella-Sanchez-Woolsey amendment and vote for its 
passage.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words, and I would like to share my strong support 
for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling].
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling].
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out two things. We 
are hearing a lot about where the money should go. Keep in mind now, we 
are talking about 75 percent of the population that has been pretty 
well ignored because they do not receive a 4-year college degree. We 
have to make sure that that 75 percent is ready to enter the high tech 
jobs that are out there, if we are going to remain competitive.
  I would also like to point out that with the formula contained in the 
bill, the nine largest cities in the country, receive anywhere from a 
12.7-percent to 17.2-percent increase. But we are talking about 75 
percent of our population that we really have to deal with and deal 
with promptly if we are going to remain competitive in this United 
States.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
  The amendment was agreed to.


             Amendment No. 5 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. 5 offered by Mrs. Mink of Hawaii:
       Page 21, line 4, strike ``(b)'' and insert ``(c)''
       Page 21, line 6, strike ``(b)'' and insert ``(c)''.
       Page 21, line 10, strike the periods and end quotation 
     marks and insert a semicolon.
       Page 21, after line 10, insert the following:
       (5) in subsection (b)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)--
       (1) by striking ``section 221'' and inserting ``paragraph 
     (3) of section 201(c); and
       (ii) by striking ``section 222'' and inserting ``paragraph 
     (4) of section 201(c)''; and
       (B) by striking subparagraph (J).
       Page 33, after line 12, insert the following (and 
     redesignate the subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
       ``(4) sex equity programs,''.
       Page 34, after line 5, insert the following:
       ``(e) Hold Harmless.--Notwithstanding the provisions of the 
     part or section 102(a), to carry out programs described in 
     paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (c), each eligible 
     recipient shall reserve from funds allocated under section 
     102(a)(1), an amount that is not less than the amount such 
     eligible recipient received in fiscal year 1997 for carrying 
     out programs under sections 221 and 222 of this Act as such 
     sections were in effect on the day before the date of the 
     enactment of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational Technical 
     Education Act Amendments of 1997.

  (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise today together with my 
colleagues the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez], the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Woolsey] and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Millender-McDonald] to offer this amendment which seeks to preserve 
existing programs serving the needs of girls and women in our 
vocational educational system.
  The bill in its current form represents a major setback for girls and 
women in our educational system. It eliminates important provisions of 
current law which target programs for displaced homemakers, single 
parents and pregnant women, and programs to ensure gender equity and 
train women for nontraditional careers. It eliminates the equity 
coordinator now required in every State to assist vocational education 
programs in meeting the needs of girls and women in these special 
categories, and eliminates a 10.5 percent set-aside which is required 
under current law.
  The amendment we offer today does not fully restore these provisions 
but assures that it will continue to receive the support at the current 
level. It maintains a vocational education equity coordinator and 
provides a hold-harmless for the displaced homemaker, single parent and 
gender equity programs at the fiscal year 1997 level. We have heard in 
the manager's amendment how the expectation is that there will be 
increased funding because of the bipartisan support for this program, 
and the formula is based upon the assumption that the funding will 
increase to the year 2002.
  Under our amendment we do not have a 10 percent set-aside. All we are 
asking is that the current funding which has been allocated to these 
four programs be maintained at the level that is being experienced in 
the local communities.
  Over 13 years ago Congress made sure that the special needs of women 
and girls were attended to by this set-aside, and numerous analyses 
have been made about the effectiveness of this program. GAO and other 
sources have reported that this is a program that has provided that 
assistance which was absent prior to this set-aside. There is evidence 
to indicate that only 1 percent of the program recipients were women in 
these categories.
  So I hope that my amendment will be agreed to. It is especially 
urgent because of the changes that were made in the welfare program. We 
are now putting emphasis on work and on work training. The only 
education program in the bill that was passed last year which meets the 
criteria of work activity is vocational training. Vocational training 
is recognized by all persons as the one means by which people who are 
not able to find a job, get a job, improve themselves, get into a 
situation where they can actually sustain their families with their 
income.
  So it is extremely important, at this stage of correlating the 
existing law to the new changes under welfare, that we not abandon the 
support that has been given to displaced homemakers, single parents, 
single pregnant women and others in this category. They need that 
continued support.
  We are restructuring this program. We are creating new ways in which 
to orient the funding of the program. It seems to me that in this 
period of transition it is critical that we hold harmless a program of 
this sort. Otherwise it will get lost.
  Notwithstanding what the majority Members, including the Chair of the 
full committee, have said, suggesting that the bill before us is 
adequate, I would like to point out that the bill does not in any way 
make sure that single parents, displaced homemakers, single pregnant 
women, or individuals

[[Page H5433]]

seeking nontraditional employment can be served. Although the State 
application must include a description of how the State will serve 
these categories of people, the application is only a planning 
document. There is no enforcement mechanism that would sanction the 
States if they did not actually do what they said in their application.
  The State leadership activities only allow a State to provide support 
for these programs; that they may choose to spend all of their money on 
required activities and absolutely none on the programs for displaced 
homemakers, single pregnant women, and sick single parents.
  The accountability provisions which have been referred to do not 
include a benchmark for measuring services to this group of 
disadvantaged persons. A State can report that only one single 
displaced homemaker was served and would meet the requirements of the 
benchmarks.
  I ask the House to consider the progress that we have made in 
addressing the special needs of these individuals in probably the most 
disadvantaged group in our society and in view of the fact that the 
welfare bill, which we voted and made into law, singles out the single 
parents on welfare and says that the policy of this country is that all 
of these individuals should work, work off their welfare or work into a 
job situation; in order to work into a job situation, have specifically 
said that the work requirement could be met by the work activity 
definition of vocational education.
  That being the case, this Congress and this House in particular has 
recognized the significance of vocational education. Women, after all, 
constitute half the population. They should have special attention. In 
view of what we did in the welfare bill, it seems to me to abandon them 
now, offer them no protection of at least sustaining the efforts that 
have been put in place, would be a dramatic reversal of the emphasis 
that we have put on serving this population.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and continue the 
programs that are in existence.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I 
rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I must stand in opposition to this amendment for my 
dear colleague from Hawaii. We so often agree on some of these gender 
issues, but on this, as I did in the committee markup, I must oppose 
the amendment.
  I agree with the direction of this legislation and that is to move 
away from any type of set-aside and, therefore, cannot support the 
amendment.
  This amendment, in my assessment, would severely limit the authority 
given to the States which is one of the prime reforms of this 
legislation; that is, the authority given to the States, to local 
school districts and post-secondary institutions that under this bill 
would determine their own priorities for reform and for funding.
  I think there are benefits, enormous benefits to putting more 
decisionmaking at the local level, as long, and I must stress this to 
my colleagues that do not understand this legislation or have not read 
it yet, as long as we have the backup and enforcement mechanisms that 
are required. I believe the legislation does this.
  To address the concerns that special populations would not be 
accommodated under this legislation, for any of our colleagues who 
question that, I have to refer them to page 29 where there is an 
explicit statement about special populations. This statement refers to 
how the State has to take certain actions in accordance with this 
legislation. Those actions include all kinds of populations and 
specifically displaced homemakers, single parents and single pregnant 
women.
  Further, the legislation does include the necessary enforcement 
mechanisms and penalties, as I read it. If the State application fails 
to show how the State will ensure that the special populations meet or 
exceed State benchmarks, then the Secretary of Education would 
disapprove the application. Further, if the State fails to meet its own 
benchmarks, then the Secretary and the Department of Education can 
intervene to bring the State up to a minimum adequate level of 
performance. That is explicit in the legislation.
  In addition, the Secretary and the department could also sanction the 
State by withholding all or part of the State grant. So I am really not 
quite sure where the author of this amendment, how the author of the 
amendment is able to say that there are no enforcement mechanisms.
  I am more than reasonably assured that we are protecting the special 
populations and at the same time gaining the benefits from the 
knowledge, the direct knowledge of those at the local level who best 
know how to target these programs. That is one of the essential reforms 
of this bill. To adopt this amendment would deny that and reinstate 
set-asides.
  I do not believe that we need set-asides or quotas. We need equity, 
we need outreach, and we need nondiscrimination. The Secretary and the 
Department of Education have the explicit authority in this legislation 
to maintain those principles.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, today I rise on behalf of our bipartisan amendment to 
H.R. 1853, the sex equity amendment. Our amendment will preserve 
programs that eliminate sex bias in vocational education and job 
training programs. This assistance is vital to displaced homemakers, 
single parents, and to pregnant women attempting to enter the work 
force.
  Let us face it, young women are being tracked into vocational 
education that leads to low wage, traditionally female occupations. I 
remember when I was graduating from high school and I went to see my 
counselor. With a straight A average, I was told to go to the local 
community college. I said I wanted to be a doctor. My counselor said, 
``Why don't you become a nurse?''
  Sadly, 10 years later my younger sister went to the same counselor at 
the same high school, and she also had practically a straight A 
average, and she was told the same thing: ``Stay close to home. Go to 
school for a 2-year degree that will get you a job that will let you 
start working right away.''
  We need to stop this. The current 10.5 percent set-aside in Perkins 
dollars is designated to reverse this detrimental trend. More 
importantly, these specialized programs move displaced homemakers and 
single parents from welfare to work, something most of us agree needs 
to be done.
  This amendment will preserve the specialized job training programs by 
requiring local entities to maintain current funding for the next 
fiscal year. Each State will also be required to maintain its sex 
equity coordinator, and that is very important because it allows 
somebody to talk to young women about good-paying jobs and following a 
program that will allow them to be good breadwinners.

                              {time}  1200

  This approach will ensure that these programs are maintained by 
providing States and local entities maximum flexibility in meeting the 
vocational education needs of women.
  Since we are all interested in reducing the number of women and 
families on welfare, our primary goal should be to increase the 
employability and the earning potential of women, especially women with 
children. The programs that we have now do this. They succeed in 
promoting self-sufficiency for women.
  So let us not take a step back but, instead, let us work toward 
maintaining and advancing these programs.
  I am especially concerned that programs to help young single mothers 
will remain intact. My district in Orange County has the highest 
incidence of teen pregnancy. When a young lady makes a good decision to 
keep a child but wonders how she will support it, it is important that 
we have programs in place to assist teen mothers to graduate from high 
school with the ability to find and maintain employment that is 
essential to getting these families out of that welfare and low-poverty 
cycle.
  If we are to break that cycle, that dependency that haunts teenage 
mothers, then we must help these young women to graduate from high 
school with the skills necessary to gain good, meaningful, long-term 
employment.
  Funding sex equity and single parent programs now is an investment in 
our young people. Small grants combined

[[Page H5434]]

with local community efforts can help to make a tremendous impact on 
programs for young women. Please vote for our amendment.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, during my tenure in the House, I have always supported 
programs that would ensure that women have access to nontraditional 
jobs. For women who are seeking job training services, the bottom line 
is a livable wage. Nontraditional jobs pay better, they offer greater 
benefits. For displaced homemakers and single parents, nontraditional 
jobs can be a pathway to economic self-sufficiency and family 
stability.
  I also believe that, we know the old adage, if it ain't broke don't 
fix it, we have a situation that is not broken, that appears to be 
working, that this bill will help to enhance, so let us not change it. 
It is because of my interest in the self-sufficiency of women that I 
have joined with my colleagues, the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. 
Mink], the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] and the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey] to offer this amendment to 
preserve programs for displaced homemakers, single parents and pregnant 
women.
  The amendment does not add any cost to the bill nor does it seek to 
restore the current law set-aside at the State level for these 
programs. It merely requires that localities currently funding such 
programs continue to do so at the same level as fiscal year 1997.
  The amendment also restores the vocational education equity 
coordinator required in each State to oversee and evaluate equity 
programs for displaced homemakers and single parents in vocational 
education, which is current law.
  It is essential that we preserve these programs, I believe, to ensure 
that women and girls have access to higher wage, higher skilled jobs 
that traditionally are reserved for men.
  Programs and services to displaced homemakers and single parents have 
received very high marks. A national assessment of past program 
participants found a majority rated the program that they attended as 
excellent or very good. Three out of four customers who participated in 
other government programs, such as the welfare system, the Job Training 
Partnership Act 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.
  In Pennsylvania, participants enrolled in the displaced homemaker 
programs terminated or reduced their need for public assistance, 
resulting in savings to the State of nearly $2 million a year.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling], the members of the committee, the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay]. I want to also commend the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].
  All of this committee have done an excellent job on this particular 
bill. I know they have put a lot of hard work into it, and this is a 
bill that directs funds for vocational education programs into the 
local level.
  I also appreciate the efforts of the chairman and the committee to 
protect programs for displaced homemakers, single parents, and pregnant 
women. However, history, as well as anecdotal information, collected by 
the National Coalition for Women and Girls on Education, makes it clear 
that without reserves States will not continue these services.
  Before designated funds were in place, States and localities spent 
only 0.2 percent of their vocational funding on specialized programming 
for women and girls. Unless language is written with more specific 
wording, programs for this special population may not continue. I think 
they will not continue in many instances.
  Some displaced homemaker programs have already been put on notice by 
State directors of vocational and technical education that, if Congress 
eliminates the reserves, they will not be funded. This is an ominous 
warning about States' commitment to equity without firm Federal 
guidelines.
  Our amendment ensures that these successful programs will continue. 
It 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.
  Mr. Chairman, women comprise close to half of the civilian work 
force. By the year 2000, more women than men will be entering the work 
force. The failure to incorporate women into all areas of the work 
force penalizes not only women but the entire American economy.
  U.S. productivity and competitiveness in the international 
marketplace will depend more and more upon industry's ability to 
encourage, incorporate, and nurture the skills and knowledge, energy, 
and creativity of women workers.
  Our amendment is not an option, it is a necessity, so I urge a 
``yes'' vote on this important amendment.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words and rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Some years ago, when we were reauthorizing vocational education, we 
found, when we got almost to the end of the markup, that we had set-
asides totaling 120 percent. Obviously, funding for programs can only 
total 100 percent but we had included set-asides for 120 percent, which 
meant that so many programs were created that were so small, that no 
one really could do much of anything with the money they were getting. 
So we had to go back to the drawing board, and fortunately we were able 
to eliminate an awful lot of those set-asides.
  Now, today, we are back, and what we would do with this amendment is 
make sure that there is less money for local school districts to do 
exactly what these Members want to do. In the formula under our bill we 
force this money down to the local level, 90 percent of it, for local 
priorities.
  Now, let me tell my colleagues what the amendment does, on the other 
hand. Let us say a State gets only $4 million. Only $4 million. Well, 
the first $60,000 goes off the top for a sex equity coordinator. Then 
that person has to have five, six, maybe eight other people that have 
to help that sex equity coordinator. Another $60,000, $100,000, 
$200,000 goes off the top and never gets down to the local level to 
help the people we are trying to help. I again point out, we are 
talking about 75 percent of our population, including displaced 
homemakers, who we need to serve in this legislation.
  Now, it was mentioned that this amendment would be better than the 
job training services provided to displaced homemakers under the Job 
Training Partnership Act. This is no any longer true. As a matter of 
fact, we have approximately $1.5 billion in the job training bill that 
we passed in May through which displaced homemakers may receive 
assistance. We have defined displaced homemakers as dislocated workers 
under that legislation and increased the emphasis for serving this 
population under that bill. We have also expanded services for 
displaced homemakers in our reconciliation bill under its welfare-to-
work provisions with another $3 billion.
  We have to understand there is 75 percent of our population that has 
not been served well; that must be served if we are going to remain a 
competitive nation. And if we do not remain a competitive nation, then 
there is no use to talk about education or training because there will 
be no jobs out there.
  In my district we have many jobs available for those who have skills. 
There are very few jobs for unskilled laborers any longer, and in the 
year 2000 there will be less. So we have to deal with this 75 percent. 
We cannot require a little set-aside here and a little set-aside there.
  As I mentioned, if we do it the way we now have it in the manager's 
amendment, we are forcing 90 percent of the money down to the local 
level.
  Now, I ask who, more than I, have led the fight over the years to 
make sure that we are serving the needs of displaced homemakers? Not 
any woman that I know, as a matter of fact, and that is why this 
legislation is filled with references requiring services for special 
populations.
  We start out on page 24 and we say describe how the State will ensure 
that members of special populations meet State benchmarks established 
under section 114 and are prepared for postsecondary education, future 
learning,

[[Page H5435]]

high skill, high wage careers. Then we have an auditor that comes in 
and makes darn sure that, as a matter of fact, the State is doing what 
they said to the Secretary they are going to do.
  We go on then and indicate that each State that receives an allotment 
under section 102 shall annually prepare and submit to the Secretary a 
report on how the State is performing on State benchmarks. And, under 
that, special population, the report submitted by the State in 
accordance with the subparagraph, shall include a description of how 
special populations, displaced homemakers--we even spell them out--are 
served under our legislation.
  And then we go to the local level, and we say ``support for programs 
for single parents, displaced homemakers, single pregnant women and 
individuals in nontraditional occupations that lead to high skill, high 
wage careers.'' And again, we mention the local level on page 52 and 
say, ``programs for single parents, displaced homemakers and single 
pregnant women.''
  We have spelled it out over, and over, and over, again that the State 
will serve special populations, displaced homemakers, single pregnant 
women and single parents, probably far better than they have been 
served in the past. If the State does not, then the State will be in 
serious trouble as far as their State allocation is concerned.
  So I would hope that we do not start this business now of having set-
asides until we weaken everything so there is not enough money to do 
anything well and no flexibility for local governments and States to 
serve those in most need.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, assuming over 50 percent of the 75 percent 
of individuals not going to college are women, if we really want to 
reduce the number of families on welfare, we should thank our 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] for offering this 
amendment.
  I am personally very proud to support girls and women in vocational 
education, and I am proud of the coauthorship of this amendment with my 
colleague from Hawaii, and the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] 
and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] and the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Millender-McDonald].
  Clearly, this amendment proves that the real welfare reform for 
families, those who are on welfare, will get off the rolls if we take 
care of women and their children. This amendment prevents families not 
only from being on welfare and helping them get off of welfare, it 
prevents them from going on welfare in the first place.
  The Mink amendment is real welfare reform. It does that because it 
preserves vocational education programs that give women the skills they 
need to get jobs that pay a livable wage. Also, it provides women with 
the ability to support themselves and their families. These programs 
train displaced homemakers, single parents and single pregnant women 
for nontraditional careers, such as blue collar jobs, jobs that men 
usually hold, jobs that pay better than the traditional jobs women 
often take.
  The data of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Mr. Chairman, shows that 
young women who graduate from high school and go right into the job 
market earn less, 25 percent less, than their male counterparts. The 
reason for this? Again, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, it 
is that these young women are overrepresented in low-paying 
occupations.
  The Mink amendment does not require any local community to start any 
new program to train women for nontraditional jobs, it just maintains 
and holds harmless what is in place today.

                              {time}  1215

  It simply says if we already have a program for displaced homemakers 
for single parents or for single pregnant women, we can and should 
continue the program.
  We know these programs work. The Department of Labor in Florida 
showed that over 70 percent of the women who participated in their 
programs in 1992 and 1993 doubled their income after completing the 
program. A study of the participants in Oregon's program showed that 
the graduates had expanded employment opportunities, increased 
salaries, and reduced dependency on public assistance.
  In 1992, less than 7 percent of all working women were employed in 
nontraditional occupations. Yet those women earned 20 to 30 percent 
more than women in more traditional jobs if they were in the 
nontraditional occupations.
  The Morella-Woolsey-Sanchez-Millender-McDonald sex equity amendment 
is good welfare prevention and good welfare reform, and I urge all of 
my colleagues to vote for it.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  (Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, as a former director of gender 
equity programs for the Los Angeles Unified School District, I would 
like to correct something that the previous speaker spoke on with 
reference to women, single parents, displaced homemakers, teen 
pregnancy programs.
  As the director of those programs, I know from the absolute 
experience that we provided the majority of the money to those programs 
to help the women, the young women who were pregnant, parents as well 
as displaced homemakers in these programs. The majority of the money 
did go down to the local level to help them, and we want to just make 
sure the Record reflects this statement and correction of that 
statement, because I do know the value and necessity for providing 
quality vocational programs for single parents and displaced 
homemakers.
  I also know the need for equity coordinators to oversee, coordinate, 
and evaluate equity initiatives in vocational education. I had four 
equity coordinators working under me, and I do know that they made 
evaluations of the program on an annual basis.
  Under current law, a 10.5-percent set-aside is required at the State 
level for these programs. Our amendment would not restore the set-aside 
but simply require that localities currently funding such programs 
continue to provide funding for these programs at the same level as the 
fiscal year 1997. Our amendment would also restore the requirement that 
a vocational education equity coordinator exist in every State.
  The Vocational Education Reauthorization Act that Congress has deemed 
essential in helping women escape domestic violence and become self-
sufficient for the past 13 years has indeed been a model program and 
one that is sorely needed. I do not see nor understand why we would not 
want to maintain a program at the current level that has proven to be 
one of the most successful programs in this country.
  The 1996 GAO study ``Employment Training: Successful Projects Share 
Common Strategy'' reported that the single parent/displaced homemaker 
program funded through the Florida program is one of the most 
successful training programs. Most of the 1,300 single parent/displaced 
homemaker program participants and program coordinators follow the 
Florida model.
  In Oregon, during the same year, the long-term success rate of these 
single and displaced homemaker programs was remarkably high. The 
employment rate soared from 28 percent to 71 percent, and the median 
wage rate increased from $6 per hour to $7.45 per hour. In addition, 
Mr. Chairman, the dependence on AFDC of the program participants fell 
from 29 percent to 15 percent.
  Studies all over the country, from Arizona to Georgia, demonstrate 
the vast improvement in increased salaries for women participants, a 
higher rate of employment of women in nontraditional jobs, and more 
women living independently from welfare assistance. And these numbers 
do not even mention the vast ways in which the vocational education has 
improved the self-esteem of these women and enhanced the lives of their 
families.
  The single and displaced homemaker programs are exceeding the goals 
they were designed to meet. This is not the time for us to close down 
these programs. If anything, we should be expanding these programs to 
ensure that

[[Page H5436]]

we reach even more women in need of a quality education program, 
especially in light of the welfare reform bill that was passed by the 
majority in this House.
  But that is not what this amendment does. The Mink-Morella-Sanchez-
Woolsey-Millender-McDonald amendment requires that local recipients of 
vocational education funds spend at least as much as they spent in 
fiscal year 1997 on programs for displaced homemakers, single parents, 
single pregnant women and programs which promote gender equity.
  We need this amendment to ensure that the doors to education and 
employment opportunities remain open for single and displaced women. 
This amendment will maintain the gender equity coordinator position and 
continue to create opportunities for women that they should have. I 
urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
  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, in the spirit of bipartisan cooperation, I 
would like to urge the majority to withdraw its opposition to this 
amendment. This is a very conservative amendment seeking to hold onto 
the status quo. We are only asking that you continue to do what we were 
doing before.
  The chairman before talked about the high-technology world that we 
are into already and how it is critically necessary that we be able to 
train people for this high-technology world. Here is a whole pool of 
people out there who can qualify, that we are ignoring in the 
traditional approach to vocational education, and too many people at 
the State and local level are still trapped in the traditional 
approach. They will not look at the pool of females who are available 
for some of these areas.
  It has been mentioned that we ought to open up blue collar jobs to 
women, and that is good and well, but we do not need to go that far. We 
have a massive number of jobs being opened every day in the world of 
the Internet and the world of computer repair and computer maintenance, 
technicians, mechanics. We have a revolution going on in our school 
system that we are not fully aware of, that will require large numbers 
of new kinds of personnel.

  I have an article that was in the New York Times today about teachers 
being trained, we need to spend more money to train teachers, and 
another article about training teachers how to make use of educational 
technology, computers, and telecommunications apparatus that may be 
available in the future. We have a $2.2 billion universal fund that is 
going to allow for discounts to go to schools so that more schools can 
get telecommunications services and be wired for the Internet. We have 
a whole category of people out there that this bill really did not take 
into full consideration.
  I appreciate the fact that the subcommittee chairman did incorporate 
language that would recognize the fact that we have a 
telecommunications and technology revolution underway. We should be 
doing more to recognize that in this legislation. It really did not do 
that.
  And certainly in opposing this bill, which seeks to keep open a new 
channel that has been opened already, to allow us to take full 
advantage of the great pool of people out there who are being ignored 
for these various technician and mechanical applications of high 
technology that are being opened, and we are going to ignore it if we 
do not do that.
  We do not have much monitoring of anything in education anymore. If 
my colleagues have been out there, they know that nothing is being 
monitored and enforced. If my colleagues take a step backwards and do 
not keep this provision in there, it will be a sign to the 
traditionalists and to the sexists to continue doing things the way 
they were doing them before we had this provision put into law. So we 
need to keep going forward and understand where we are in this 
revolution.
  I was visiting a Citibank processing center several years ago, where 
they process their paperwork and bills and so forth, a massive center 
of people doing high-technology computerized processing, and I noticed 
most of the people in there were women. They pointed out the fact that 
women, particularly those who did not have college educations, who are 
intelligent but do not have a college education, were the best 
employees for that kind of repetitive job which required a high degree 
of focus and accuracy. They did not want college-educated women because 
they got bored, their minds wandered.
  There is a certainly category, the kind of people we are talking 
about here, who could fill those jobs if they were given the 
opportunity, but if we do not open up the vista, if we do not have the 
people in charge of vocational and technical education.
  I want to emphasize that vocational education does not mean what it 
used to mean. We are not talking about automobile mechanics, we are not 
talking about plasterers, we are not talking about various kinds of 
people only. We are talking about the full range of jobs that are 
opening up in our society, which is a high-technology society which 
requires people who are good technicians, good mechanics, and they have 
good pay in these areas also.
  My son is employed in the computer area, and the industry is training 
people at improvising all along to meet its needs. The jobs pay very 
well, and women can do those jobs as well as men. But even in this new 
area, most of the people that are there are men because there is a 
mind-set that starts with vocational education and career guidance in 
the schools that we have to break.
  The Mink amendment breaks that mind-set. The Mink amendment wants to 
continue what we started before to break that mind-set. We want the 
traditionalists to understand that the Federal Government is not taking 
a back seat. We see things from the national and international level 
that local people do not see. They deserve to have our vision 
projected. The mandates are really often ways to open up their minds to 
see new vistas.
  We see a global economy. We see the great need. We know that there 
80,000 jobs out there already not being filled, related in some way to 
computers and telecommunication and technology. We should provide more 
leadership by maintaining what we have already. Let us vote positive 
for the Mink amendment.
  Ms. CARSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I will not take the whole 5 minutes because I do not want to be 
redundant. I simply want to recall an adage that is worth its weight in 
gold, and that is, Come and let us reason together.
  We have had a lot of dialog in terms of welfare reform. Yet, to 
oppose the amendment of the honorable gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. 
Mink] would in fact eliminate a set-aside and provide a setback for the 
most vulnerable and fragile segment of our society that we seek to 
assist in the amendment of the gentlewoman.
  I would simply say, very briefly, that we need to envision welfare 
reform as providing an opportunity for people to become self-sufficient 
by providing them an apparatus to develop the right kind of vocational 
education and skills to enable them to move out into the world of work.
  This is not a spendthrift kind of amendment. It is an investment in 
the most fragile infrastructure of our society. I would encourage 
unanimous support of the Mink amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands [Ms. 
Christian-Green].
  (Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Indiana [Ms. Carson] for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink]. I want to commend 
and associate myself with her remarks and those of the other sponsors 
of the amendment, my esteemed colleagues, the gentlewoman from Maryland 
[Mrs. Morella], the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey], the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Millender-McDonald], and others who 
have spoken for this amendment.
  The amendment offered by my colleagues is needed to preserve the 
important existing programs which serve

[[Page H5437]]

the needs of girls and women in our vocational system. It seeks to 
retain a minimum level of support for programs for girls and women in 
this system, to retain an equity coordinator, and to eliminate sex bias 
in vocational education as well as in access to programs and training 
which would eventually lead to better-paying jobs for women.

                              {time}  1230

  Some have argued that this kind of investment is already covered in 
the bill. But, Mr. Chairman, it has been demonstrated that wherever 
these programs were not specifically federally mandated, they were 
dropped.
  At no prior time in this country's history has it been more important 
for us to make sure that our women, who make up the vast majority of 
single households, are still locked out of the vast majority of jobs, 
have been locked into lower salaries and who have been given no other 
choice but to turn to AFDC, now TANF, to enable them to raise their 
children, be given every opportunity to learn a nontraditional trade, 
to develop a better-paying skill and thus move into the job market with 
hope for a better future not only for themselves but for their 
children.
  I urge my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, to support the education of our 
young women, to support job opportunities for single parents and for 
mothers to be, and to therefore restore hope for these women and for 
their children.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
amendment offered by Mrs. Mink of Hawaii. This is a good amendment. 
This amendment is fundamentally about equal rights and equal access. 
Simply put, this amendment ensures that displaced homemakers, single 
mothers, pregnant women, and others traditionally underserved by 
vocational education will have access to vocational education and job 
training.
  Vocational education has become a cornerstone of our democracy. 
Vocational education provides millions of American citizens with the 
opportunity to become independent. Vocational education provides 
individuals with real skills so that they can succeed in today's 
workplace. In fact, thousands of women in my district have benefited 
from these vocational programs. For example, the Chicago Women In 
Trade's [CWIT] Organization located in my district is now in its 10th 
year and is supported by sex-equity funds. CWIT has been successful in 
training over 450 women, many single parents, and helping them move 
from low-income jobs to high wage careers.
  These vocational programs for women have been funded since 1984, and 
have been very successful. These programs have helped women find real 
jobs. When women find meaningful jobs that is good for America. It 
helps to lower the welfare roles, and enables women and families to 
escape domestic violence. More importantly, it empowers women and gives 
them real independence.
  I urge my colleagues not to go backward, to draconian methods of 
denying women the opportunity to vocational opportunities. Rather let's 
move forward and restore gender equity to vocational programs.
  Let's support this amendment as it is good for America.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment as 
well as the legislation overall. I feel that although it is not a 
perfect piece of legislation, we can move this on to conference. The 
Senate has some different provisions in it, but as a new member of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce, I am proud to see the 
cooperation and bipartisan effort that went into crafting this deal, 
even though there were a lot of 11th-hour maneuverings which got us to 
this point.
  I want to commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] and the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez] for the hard work they put 
into it, as well as the leadership of the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Goodling] and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] on this 
legislation, but I do feel that there is still some more work that 
needs to be done and improved in this piece of legislation.
  We have heard a couple of comments today about the substate formula 
and the minimum local grants and the effect that is going to have on a 
lot of needy students. I feel that the change of the formula, 
especially in the final couple of years, will undermine the key Federal 
role in assisting the neediest rural students in western Wisconsin, the 
district that I represent. I think this formula change sends a bad 
message to them. But also the formula change, combined with reducing 
the minimum grant from $15,000 to $10,000, would dilute the 
effectiveness of Federal funds. Again, this provision could endanger 
many of the consortia in my district in western Wisconsin where we have 
an effective system that allows local school districts to pool their 
vocational education funds.
  I am also concerned that the legislation severely cuts the funding 
for State-level activities. Vocational education institutions in 
western Wisconsin rely on State agencies to maintain a detailed 
performance of accountability and to supply them with analyzed 
statewide information on student success and program performance for 
their local planning. Performing these tasks at the system level is the 
most effective way to assist the local improvement.
  But I find the elimination of the special job training and just to 
hold harmless on already existing gender equity programs to be the most 
disturbing aspect of this legislation here today. The barriers that 
continue for women in those nontraditional fields remain a troubling 
national problem. This will only be compounded now with the full 
implementation of welfare reform across the country. By reducing 
support for women seeking to gain access to high-skilled training for 
high-wage careers, this bill once again overlooks the needs of a 
disadvantaged population. We must retain a minimum level of support for 
programs for girls and women in vocational education. I think this 
amendment goes a long way at addressing this need.
  That is why I strongly urge my colleagues here today to give welfare 
reform a chance and to support the Mink-Morella-Sanchez-Woolsey 
amendment.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KIND. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  (Mrs. TAUSCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this important amendment 
that maintains current funding levels for programs that benefit girls 
and women and promote gender equity in our vocational education system. 
These vital programs train women for higher wage jobs so they can 
become self-sufficient and stay off welfare. They also promote high-
skill, high-technology training in nontraditional fields for girls and 
women. These programs address the special needs of vocational training 
for displaced homemakers, single moms and single pregnant women.
  As the mother of a 6-year-old daughter, I want her to have the same 
career opportunities that will be available to my 6-year-old nephew. We 
must not forget our daughters, nieces, and granddaughters and the 
legacy we pass on to them.
  This amendment makes sense and these programs deserve our support. 
Please vote to maintain the funding for these important programs which 
offer a way up the ladder for women determined to improve their lives 
and that give our young girls the chance to feel the thrill of 
professional achievement and personal success.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I support all the previous speakers and all that they 
have said as it relates to this fine piece of legislation. I want to 
first commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the 
chairman, as well as the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay], our 
ranking member, for all their hard work over the years to work on and 
retain the Perkins Act which has helped several million women across 
this country.
  I am a former teacher in the public school system in the Detroit 
public schools. I taught business classes and vocational classes. I saw 
the peak as young women and men gained the skill necessary to compete 
in America's job market. I know the importance of vocational education 
and the skills that it requires and offers to young people to move and 
matriculate as they become parents.
  Most of my colleagues know that this is the 25th year of title 9. 
Title 9 was

[[Page H5438]]

instituted in 1972 and this year we celebrate the 25th anniversary of 
title 9. In title 9's experience, millions of women and men, 
particularly women, have shared across this country in higher education 
experiences as a result of the title 9 experiences, and many of them in 
their vocational education training.
  As has been already said, vocational education has increased 
employment opportunities. Vocational education has also increased wage 
earning for millions of Americans. It has reduced AFDC caseloads across 
America and has had millions of dollars in savings. This is not a time 
to cut back. We must mandate States that they continue in their support 
of vocational education training.
  I come from the State of Michigan. I served in that legislature for 
several years. I served on the education committee there and know of 
the commitment after the enactment of the vocational education ruling, 
after the Perkins Act mandated the 10 percent, that many children were 
able, through the mandate from the Federal Government, to participate 
in vocational education programs to prepare them for the world of work.
  I commend the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] and the other 
sponsors for bringing this amendment forward. We have got to keep the 
commitment to the States. The 10 percent is just a minuscule amount. I 
wish we could increase that amount, but to eliminate it totally is 
unfortunate. This amendment asks that we retain the level of funding 
for 1997 and beyond, that that level of funding not decrease.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope we support the Mink amendment.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KILPATRICK. I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia.
  Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I rise in strong 
support of the Mink amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this is no time to turn tail and run after 13 years of 
bipartisan support for special attention to the most vulnerable women 
in America on vocational education opportunities. That is not only 
because we are in the throes now finally of welfare reform, but because 
vocational training is where women have been most shortchanged and 
where there has been the most discrimination.
  Vocational training has been a major element in discrimination 
against women in the workplace. It is only fair to specially target 
some of our funds toward these most vulnerable of women, displaced 
homemakers, single parents, single pregnant women. These are the women 
most in need. These are the women most likely to be trapped into 
discriminatory job opportunities. These are the women most likely to be 
overlooked.
  This amendment assures that there will be special outreach to these 
women, and if there is not special outreach, then for many of them it 
simply will not happen.
  We will not need the sanctions if we get the outreach. We will not 
get the outreach without this amendment. In many ways I regard this 
amendment as akin to a nondiscrimination provision. Where we have had 
the breakthroughs for women is in professional jobs like law and 
medicine and accounting and business. In jobs where women can make as 
much or more money as a welder or machinist is where we need to put our 
attention and where we need to do the most outreach.
  The call on vocational training funds will be enormous. These funds 
are going to go to the most enlightened and the most educated. Those 
are not the women covered by this amendment.
  The remedy for poverty, Mr. Chairman, is very simple. It is a job. 
But it is not every job. As those seeking to get off welfare now 
understand, it is not most jobs for which most of the most vulnerable 
women have the training. I approach this in many ways as a 
nondiscrimination provision. Government money has been used to 
reinforce existing job patterns. What we do with this amendment is to 
use government money to get us out of those patterns. Remember, this 
amendment ought to be seen as the counterpart to the horrendous budget 
cuts that these women themselves have received, 97 percent of the 
people on AFDC are women and children. They have $53 billion in cuts; 
85 percent of the people on Medicaid are women and children. They have 
$72 billion in cuts. And it goes on and on that way.
  The way to make sure that these cuts do not harm these single 
mothers, these displaced homemakers, and these single pregnant women is 
to give them the best opportunities for jobs. For them, the best 
opportunities are in vocational training. If we take away this 
opportunity after so many years of bipartisan support, we undermine 
what we have been trying to do.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mink-Morella-Sanchez-
Woolsey amendment to the vocational education reauthorization bill.
  These gender equity programs have been highly successful throughout 
the Nation and have dramatically increased the number of women who 
participate in vocational education programs.
  We have studies that indicate that women who participate in these 
programs are able to increase their earning capacity in nontraditional 
occupational fields and successfully eliminate their cyclical 
dependency on public assistance.
  A recent GAO study of employment training programs found that the 
1,300 displaced homemaker and single-parent programs in operation 
throughout the Nation are among the most successful programs of this 
type.
  In Oregon, for example, these programs increased the employment rates 
for participants from 28 to 71 percent, increased hourly earnings by an 
average of $1.45, and reduced AFDC dependency from 29 to 15 percent.
  The study documented similar increases in earnings and placements in 
nontraditional jobs and reductions in welfare rates in other States as 
well.
  Clearly, the need to ensure equal access to training programs is even 
more important today than it was when the gender equity provisions were 
originally enacted by Congress.
  For example, the passage of last year's welfare reform legislation 
places severe restrictions on the ability of poor women and their 
children to continue to receive welfare.
  Since the majority of women on welfare are women with children, it is 
imperative to provide them real opportunities to earn higher wages in 
highly skilled jobs to support themselves and their children.
  The failure to continue to protect vocational training could severely 
limit single parents, single pregnant women, and displaced homemakers' 
ability to find employment and will increase the likelihood that they 
and their children will remain in poverty or become homeless.
  We simply must not abandon the Federal commitment to gender equity in 
vocational education by eliminating minimum guarantees of funding for 
gender equity programs.
  The gender equity provisions of the Mink amendment strike a 
reasonable compromise between set-aside programs and assurances that 
States will continue to allocate resources to gender equity programs.

                              {time}  1245

  I urge my colleagues to support the Mink-Morella-Sanchez-Woolsey 
amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mink amendment to 
ensure that States continue to operate vocational educational programs 
for women and girls.
  Last year we passed a welfare reform law designed to help individuals 
become self-sufficient. Many of those struggling to get off welfare are 
single parents and displaced homemakers. Unfortunately, traditional 
vocational training programs do not focus on the unique obstacles faced 
by women trying to raise a family. If we truly value families, we must 
value those programs that allow parents to provide for those 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 more than a decade these programs 
have

[[Page H5439]]

helped women move into careers that provide higher wages, better 
benefits, and the possibility of advancement. Not surprisingly, women 
in nontraditional occupations earn 20 to 30 percent more than those in 
traditionally female occupations. We must protect and support programs 
that help women move into these higher paying jobs. That is how we end 
welfare dependency and increase family incomes.
  I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, that under this bill programs would 
ignore the needs of women. My colleagues will recall that last month we 
celebrated the 25th anniversary of title IX, which prohibits gender 
discrimination in education. We have made progress in promoting gender 
equity in education since the title IX law was passed in 1972, but we 
have not put an end to discrimination entirely. We must not undermine 
the mission of title IX by eliminating the role played by gender equity 
coordinators in vocational education. The Mink amendment will keep this 
important activity alive.
  When we discussed these programs some time ago, I spoke about Kelly 
Miles, a single mother of three from New York City who was on public 
assistance for many years. Through a nontraditional employment training 
program for women, Kelly was able to move off welfare and begin a 
career as an electrician. She is a wonderful example of what women can 
achieve through these very important programs.
  The programs preserved by the Mink amendment help us reach thousands 
of Kelly Miles, women who want to be self-sufficient but need to 
develop the tools to get there. I urge all of my colleagues to support 
the Mink amendment.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask the question do we need the Mink 
amendment to deal with displaced home workers, single parents, and 
single pregnant women? In my view, the answer is no. In this bill it is 
not mentioned once, it is not mentioned twice, it is not mentioned 
three times. It is in there four times. From the plan to the benchmarks 
to all the goals, it is listed again and again as one of our top 
priorities.
  What happens when we have too many Federal rules? Less money to the 
classroom, more money for bureaucrats. Do we need more bureaucrats in 
this issue? I do not think we do.
  In Pennsylvania I was chairman of Health and Welfare for 10 years and 
served on that committee for 19 years in both the House and the Senate. 
I was very much a part of Pennsylvania's historic welfare reform bill, 
which preceded the Federal bill but paralleled it.
  Every incentive that is needed to help this population is a part of 
welfare reform because it is the majority of welfare recipients who are 
in this position. Welfare to work money targets this population 
appropriately. In the job training bill we made it much easier to use 
the money for this population, and in this bill we outline it not once, 
but four times, that this is a population that needs to be served.
  In many States, and I know in Pennsylvania we have a very strong 
displaced homemaker program, vocational schools often have expanded 
their programs to utilize those State dollars because the need was 
there. I think we are assuming here at the Federal level that local 
districts, that States, are not aware of this problem. Everything that 
is happening in America leads us to serving this population. If States 
are going to meet the targets in the Federal bill, they must serve this 
population or they will not.
  So for us today to over and above the four-time limits in the bill to 
say that every school district must prove to the State and to the 
Federal Government that they spent no less money, that is really more 
bureaucracy than if we had a set-aside. That means potentially 10,000 
to 16,000 school districts will have to be evaluated, and, my 
colleagues, I do not believe that is necessary. If I thought it was 
necessary, I would support the Mink amendment.
  I think it is important that we follow the lead of this bill of 
getting money to the classroom. All the incentives are in place to 
serve this population, and this bill highlights it not once, but four 
times. I ask for defeat of the Mink amendment. It is not necessary.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the opportunity to, even though I 
know we are under the 5-minute rule, close debate on this particular 
amendment. First of all, let me just say that I worry that this debate 
has turned into an exercise in political correctness, and let me tell 
my colleagues why I say that. We did not hear from a single witness, 
nor to the best of my knowledge, did we receive any correspondence in 
support of maintaining any kind of set-asides to serve special 
populations. What the Mink amendment would do is essentially replace a 
State mandate with a local mandate. It would replace a State set-aside 
with a local set-aside and reduce the flexibility that we want to give 
local schools to provide vocational-technical education programs. And 
that is very much in keeping with a longstanding American tradition of 
decentralized decisionmaking in public education.
  In fact, as I mentioned, we did hear from Paul Cole, one of our 
witnesses and the vice president of the American Federation of 
Teachers. He testified in support of eliminating set-asides before our 
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families, and I quote from 
Mr. Cole's testimony.
  ``Federal legislation should eliminate set-asides at State and local 
levels. For instance, funding formulas for special populations are 
harmful when they provide an incentive for schools to retain students 
in these categories because the funding depends on it.''
  And Mr. Cole's statement is very consistent with the report that was 
done by the Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and 
Improvement, entitled ``National Assessment of Vocational Education 
Final Report to Congress,'' and I quote from that report.
  ``There are two major risks in broad-brush efforts to include more 
and more special population students in vocational education. The first 
is that factors other than the students' best interest will become more 
prominent in placement decisions. For example, recruiting special needs 
students in order to keep vocational enrollments up, and thus maintain 
staff positions, is a familiar practice, and it often complements a 
desire in comprehensive schools to get hard-to-educate students out of 
regular classes.'' That is a practice that is called in some areas of 
the country ``dumping'' or ``tracking students.'' ``In situations such 
as this some students will benefit from participation in vocational 
programs, but others will not.''
  The report goes on to say, ``The second risk is that vocational 
programs, especially those in area schools, will increasingly become 
special needs programs separated from the mainstream of secondary 
education, an outcome opposite to the integration of academic and 
vocational curricula envisioned by Perkins.''
  So the other thing I want to point out is I know that the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Millender-McDonald] who wants me to yield has some 
concerns as to whether or not we are building sufficient safeguards 
into the legislation to ensure that these special populations will 
continue to be served. I want to go right to the bill because I suspect 
a number of people who have spoken on the other side of the aisle on 
the Mink, et al. amendment have not actually looked at the bill. So I 
am going to read from it.
  ``Each State application shall describe how the State will ensure 
that members of special populations meet State benchmarks, and each 
State will provide vocational technical education programs that lead to 
high skill, high wage careers for members of special populations, 
displaced homemakers, single parents, and single pregnant women.''
  These are adequate assurances.
  Now I was asked about accountability. Let us talk about 
accountability for just a moment. Under the accountability section, 
``Each State that receives funding under this bill shall annually 
prepare and submit to the Secretary of Education a report on how the 
State is performing on State benchmarks that relate to vocational-
technical education programs.''
  In preparing the report, the report submitted by the State ``shall 
include,'' again the operative word, ``shall''--a description of how 
special populations, displaced homemakers, single parents, and single 
pregnant

[[Page H5440]]

women participate in vocational technical education programs and, 
again, have met the vocational-technical education benchmarks 
established by the State.'' This is mandatory, not permissive or 
optional.
  And what happens if the State fails to meet those benchmarks? Very 
clearly, right here, colleagues, in the bill, ``If a State fails to 
meet the State benchmarks, the Secretary of Education may withhold from 
the State all or a portion of the State's allotment under this Act.''
  We have taken real concrete steps to address Members' concerns in 
this legislation. I submit to Members that the language in the bill now 
negates the need for the Mink amendment. I implore my colleagues, do 
not replace a State mandate with a local mandate, do not replace a 
State set-aside with a local set-aside. Support the legislation as it 
is presently drafted. Vote ``no'' on the Mink amendment. Just say no to 
more mandates for local schools.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the logic from the 
gentleman from California, and I wondered whether or not if we follow 
that logic through if the idea would be that if we built more prisons 
somehow we would end up with more crime. The truth of the matter is 
that simply because we try to solve a problem by fixing it, by 
assisting in the solution of the issue, by having people work in 
various school systems and the like to solve a problem of gender 
inequity does not mean that the inequity is going to be perpetuated; it 
means that we are trying to solve it.
  I mean, the fact of the matter is that when young people in my 
district and across the country ask me what the great issues of the day 
that I believe are out there, I say, ``Listen, you look at the people 
sitting in this room in a particular high school, look at the young 
women in this high school.'' The fact is that if they go out and get 
the same job, work in the same number of hours as a young man doing the 
same kind of activity, they are going to get paid 69 cents for every 
dollar that the man gets, and the fact is that it is time that we take 
into consideration the kind of gender prejudice that exists in America.
  Mr. Chairman, that is all that we have done in the Congress in the 
past. That is what we are asking that this bill, and I think the Mink 
amendment, which is supported on a bipartisan basis by the gentlewoman 
from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Sanchez] and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey] and the 
like, that recognizes what we want to maintain is the effort that has 
been recognized by the Congress of the United States to end the kind of 
gender prejudice that exists throughout our country.
  The fact is that anyone who has looked at where jobs are and young 
women are targeted in terms of what the kinds of jobs that they are 
going to be able to pursue is that not only is the pay gap currently 
that 6 out of 10 women are employed in the traditional female roles. 
One reason for the pay gap that currently exists is that 6 out of 10 
women are employed in the traditional female fields of service, 
technical jobs, sales and administrative support.

                              {time}  1300

  In contrast, two-thirds of the men worked as managers, operators, 
professionals, and craft workers. All we are trying to do in this 
legislation, and I think the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] 
deserves a great deal of credit, is to try to maintain the fact that we 
want to ensure that there is in fact a small set-aside to eliminate the 
kind of gender gap that has existed in our system, and do everything we 
can to make certain that that gap is eliminated on the fastest possible 
basis.
  Mr. Chairman, I know we are running out of time.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentlewoman from New 
York.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise really in support of the Mink amendment. My 
office keeps a scorecard on the legislative attempts to take programs 
and benefits away from women. Unfortunately, we are chalking up another 
attack today. It is not as if we are asking for new funding. All we 
want is continued funding at this year's level, and the continuation of 
programs that work. Displaced homemakers, single parents, pregnant 
women, and some girls in vocational schools are all populations at 
risk. Why shut them out? Why, at the same time we are trying to get 
women off welfare rolls, are we eliminating the very programs that will 
help them get off welfare rolls?
  In Oregon a recent study documented its long-term success in 
increasing employment rates from 28 percent to 71 percent. Wages 
increased; 14 percent of the women on welfare got off welfare. There is 
so much to fix, Mr. Chairman, that is broken. Let us not try to fix 
what is not broken. Let us continue funding for this program.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  (Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support 
of the Mink amendment.
   Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my strong support to 
Congresswoman Mink's amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment asking for financial support for programs that benefit girls 
and women. This is essential to help secure a future for millions of 
female citizens.
  Young adults need vocational education and job training because this 
will provide them the skills needed to succeed in today's workplace. We 
must provide women with these opportunities because only then will we 
contribute to lowering the number of women receiving welfare 
assistance, enabling them to become self-sufficient and independent. 
Struggling homemakers, single mothers, and teenage women will have an 
opportunity to live productively and comfortably by having the chance 
to become educated in employment areas where there is high demand for 
skilled workers.
  Vocational education and job training are directly linked to the 
reduction of welfare. If we want women to get off welfare, we need to 
provide meaningful job programs to train them. The participation in 
these programs results in higher wages and an increased number of work 
hours for women. I am asking you to support programs that train women 
for nontraditional jobs--like masons, computer programmers, and 
plumbers.
  Displaced homemakers and single parent programs are crucial to the 
well-being of the disadvantaged. It is crucial that we provide funding 
for these programs. Displaced homemakers and single parent programs 
specialize in individually targeted pre-employment training and 
counseling services. Women will benefit from life skills development, 
career exploration, job training and placement, and support services.
  In my State of Texas, 52 percent of displaced women rated the 
displaced homemaker or single parent program as much better than any 
other government program in which they have participated. Texas needs 
financial support of these programs. These programs help all women:
  There are 1.2 million displaced homemakers in Texas: 47 percent of 
displaced homemakers are under 50 years old; and 39 percent of 
displaced homemakers are African-American, Asian, and Hispanic.
  There are 561,342 single mothers in Texas: 61 percent of Texan single 
mothers are between the ages of 25-44; 47 percent of single mothers are 
African-American and Hispanic; and 53 percent are nonminority.
  I urge all of you to support this amendment: you will be building the 
foundation for displaced homemakers, single parents, and individuals 
training for nontraditional occupations.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Klug) having assumed the chair, Mr. Ewing, 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. 1853) to amend 
the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act, 
had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________