[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.
____________________