[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 104 (Tuesday, July 22, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H5526-H5544]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CARL D. PERKINS VOCATIONAL-TECHNICAL EDUCATION ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1997
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 further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 1853.
{time} 1707
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 further 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. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, July
17, 1997, pending was the amendment by the gentlewoman from Hawaii
[Mrs. Mink] and the bill was open for amendment at any point.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for a recorded vote on
any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the time for
voting on any postponed question that immediately follows another vote,
provided that the time for voting on the first question shall be a
minimum of 15 minutes.
Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I do that so that I can call to the attention of the
Members and anyone who may be watching the proceeding exactly what
legislation we are dealing with today. My colleagues will hear more
emotional comments made, but in many instances not too relevant to what
we are doing.
[[Page H5527]]
H.R. 1853 authorizes funding for vocational-technical education. I
repeat: H.R. 1853 authorizes funding for vocational-technical
education. For the first time in this legislation we deal with access
to excellence instead of access to mediocrity. The most difficult thing
to do around here over the years, has been to get people to think
beyond access, because in so many instances it was access to
mediocrity.
But here we are talking about authorizing funding for vocational-
technical education in 43 of the 50 States, that funding goes primarily
to vocational-technical education at the secondary level, vocational-
technical education at the secondary level, area vocational-technical
schools at the secondary level. That is primarily what we are talking
about in this legislation.
Now if we have a one-size-fits-all, and we decide this one-size-fits-
all set-aside is good, then we have to keep in mind that the money must
come from somewhere. And under this proposal we would take it from the
secondary education programs for which 43 of the States use the money
that we are talking about today. So it is extremely important that we
understand what we are doing today. We are talking primarily about
secondary vocational-technical education.
Now, I do not take a back seat to anybody when we talk about the
importance of special populations. And so, I remind my colleagues
again, that in this legislation section 114 on the State application
asks the State to describe, (A) how to provide vocational technical
education programs that lead to high-skill, high-wage careers for
members of special populations, including displaced homemakers, single
parents, single pregnant women, and (B) ensure that members of special
populations meet State benchmarks, because again we are talking about
excellence now, not access to mediocrity.
In section 115, on accountability, 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 about technical education
benchmarks that the State may establish; and (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 have performed on
meeting these benchmarks established by the State.
Then we talk in section 201 about State uses of funds, and again we
talk about special populations, and the State must tell in an
assessment how the needs of special populations are being met.
So I want to make very sure that everyone understands that we have
one, two, three, four, five, six different statements, six different
sections dealing with special populations. But more importantly when we
talk about special populations, as I indicated, here we are talking
primarily about taking money away from secondary vocational education
programs in 43 of those States.
But we have other programs, one that just came from our Committee
back in May. We passed the Employment Training and Literacy Enhancement
Act that significantly expands services, for displaced homemakers. The
bill includes displaced homemakers in the definition of dislocated
workers, making them eligible for $1.3 billion in employment and
training services. In addition, displaced homemakers are eligible to
receive services under the Disadvantaged Adult Employment Training
Program, another billion dollars, and then another $3 billion for
welfare-to-work in the Balanced Budget Act.
So we have not done anything other than increase the opportunity for
special populations, not just to get access, but to get access to
quality.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. CLAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, for the past 10 years, the Perkins Act has
contained strong provisions to address the needs of displaced
homemakers and to encourage advancement of women in nontraditional
employment. Unfortunately, this bill repeals the act's emphasis on
gender equity, and I think that is a shame, Mr. Chairman.
{time} 1715
I think that the amendment of the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink]
will put that back into the bill, and I rise in support of that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind the House that we cut off debate
and consideration of this amendment on Thursday last, and we were not
able to bring it to a vote. There was a very large number of Members
who were here on the floor to speak about the amendment, but just to
refresh our memories on the pending amendment, what it seeks to do is
simply to say, hold harmless the amounts of monies and numbers of
programs that are in existence today specifically to deal with
vocational education and training for displaced homemakers, single
parents, pregnant women, and to particularly allocate funding for a
gender equity coordinator for this program. The reason for the
amendment is that the bill we are considering eliminates the targeted
program that has been in place and established for over 13 years.
If it were simply a matter of eliminating this set-aside of funding,
and the program directives and direction and so forth are the same,
perhaps this is an overly sensitive concern. But bear in mind that this
program has been totally rewritten, overhauled. We have a new approach
which has been now set down by the majority. If we do not hold harmless
this program, I fear that the program will just simply be lost in the
confusion.
We saw how difficult it was for the States to accommodate to the new
rules under welfare. They had to completely revamp their programs, and
in the process there was much confusion, and many of the people were
left out in the process. This group of individuals, the single parents
and displaced homemakers, is too critical a group of individuals to
cause this confusion because we are rewriting this legislation.
It seems to me absolutely critical that we hold harmless this
program. We are not adding any more money. We are not even keeping the
10 percent set-aside. We are simply saying that those programs that
exist now should continue to exist, and the program emphasis, to deal
with the special problems of displaced homemakers and single parents,
ought to have the consideration of this Congress.
In view of the fact that the welfare legislation has now put a very
high premium on jobs for those on welfare, the single parents we are so
concerned about, that they find work and get off of welfare and become
self-sufficient, in the language of the bill we have specifically said
that work activity includes vocational education and training and they
may have this benefit for 12 months. So the Congress has recognized the
importance of vocational education and training and directed work
activity as including the definition of vocational education.
So with that as a mandate by this Congress in the welfare reform act,
it seems extremely urgent that we continue this program in order that
these individuals now, under the demand of the Congress that they find
work, not find empty spaces, nonexistent programs, when they are
looking for vocational training in order to better their skills and get
employment that can put them into the position of supporting their
families and being self-sufficient. That is what this Congress said:
Get out and work, get trained if you do not have the skills, support
your own families, and become part of the contributing part of our
society.
So it seems to me absolutely parallel that we support this amendment,
continue the vocational education programs, and target this program to
this special needs community. So I urge this House to support this
amendment and continue the program with a hold harmless provision.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I will not take the full 5 minutes, but I just want to
echo the
[[Page H5528]]
comments of my friend, the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink], and
support this amendment. What we are talking about here is a program
that has worked, that has a proven track record of improving the lives
of women and girls.
Let me just say that if Members are in doubt of that, all they need
to do is look at the 1996 GAO study entitled ``Employment Training:
Successful Projects, Shared and Common Strategy.'' The single parent
displaced homemaker program funded through the Florida set-aside was
cited as one of the most successful training programs. Most of the
1,300 single parent displaced homemakers programs that we have follow
this Florida model.
A study of Oregon's displaced homemaker, single parent program
documented the long-term success of this program in increased
employment rates from 28 to 71 percent of the participants, 28 to 71
percent; increased median wage rates from $6 an hour to $7.45 an hour,
and a reduction of the AFDC dependency from 29 percent to 15 percent.
In Arizona, participants in these programs averaged higher median
wages and worked more hours than they did prior to their participation.
Women in nontraditional jobs have increased in Arizona from 7 to 17
percent. And in Georgia, participant salaries increased from an average
of $11,000 prior to participation to about $16,500.
So these programs are important. They are important to women, they
are important to girls, they are important to raising the standard of
living of people who are in a situation who are trying to move from
work. They are terribly important to our society.
Here we have a program with a proven track record. It has had
bipartisan support. As I understand it, this was Senator Hatch's idea
in the Senate. It has had great support here in Republicans and
Democrats in the past. I hope that we will continue with this program.
It is a set-aside of a reasonable percent. It is not a huge percent. It
is a reasonable percent of programs that work. If we are trying to move
people from welfare to work, we ought to stick with this program that
has had a proven track record.
I commend my colleagues, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay], the
gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink], the gentlewoman from Maryland
[Mrs. Morella], and all those who are working in support of this
program.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Mink amendment because the
distinction the amendment makes is vital. It is a distinction that this
body makes all the time in favor of the most vulnerable and the least
likely to take advantage of Federal fund opportunities. These are the
women who are most likely to have been tracked into low-wage jobs. We
can untrack them and undo that discrimination by allotting a very small
portion of these funds for them.
Why go to that trouble? Why not use what is already in the bill? The
reason is that there is no question but that these funds, like most
Federal funds, are likely to go disproportionately to the best-educated
and the most conscious; those who understand their rights and the
availability of funds. Those happen not to be displaced homemakers,
single pregnant women, or single parents.
This body has a vested interest in the Mink amendment because these
are the women most likely to cost the government the most, because
these are the women most likely to be dependent and the women least
armed with education and experience. We make distinctions of this kind
all the time, and ought to continue to make them.
Constantly, Mr. Chairman, I see Federal opportunities getting to
people who would get them anyway. We need to make it impossible to
spend a certain amount of this money, this small amount, except for the
most vulnerable. Nothing guarantees that except the Mink amendment.
What it means is that the funders, the States and cities, are going to
have to do outreach rather than simply report to us that they tried to
do outreach.
The Mink amendment encompasses a long, bipartisan tradition. This is
not the year to break that tradition. I thank the gentlewoman for
indeed striving to continue this important tradition.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mink amendment. Mr. Chairman,
the Congress has a duty to provide political leadership in our Nation.
We hear a lot of talk these days about States' rights. I was a State
Senator in Ohio, and I know about the importance of State government
action. But I also know that State officials look very carefully at the
policies put forward by the Federal Government. We shirk our duties if
we do not convey to the States the issues and the approaches which
Congress considers to be important for the unity and economic security
of our Nation.
Mr. Chairman, the Mink amendment provides an excellent example of the
importance of Federal leadership. I have watched the progress of the
vocational education bill carefully. I have seen my colleagues insert a
special set-aside for rural areas, a provision that has been expanded
to rural and urban areas. At the same time, I have seen a set-aside for
gender equity programs eliminated from the bill.
Need I point out the inconsistency here? Are people somehow more
important because they live in a particular rural or urban area? What
about the importance of women and girls having the opportunity to enter
any and all occupations so they can make the maximum contribution to
our economy?
Mr. Chairman, for 13 years the Congress has felt that programs for
displaced homemakers, for single parents, gender equity programs, were
so important in vocational education that we required States to spend a
certain percentage of the Federal funds that they received. Is the
Congress now saying that this policy was wrong?
Mr. Chairman, the Mink amendment is a reasonable and moderate measure
to continue Federal Government policy. It would restore the vocational
education equity coordinator. It would require that localities that now
have gender equity programs continue those programs.
If this amendment is defeated, it will send a clear signal to the
States. It will signal that the rights of women and girls are not
important when it comes to vocational education programs. It will lead
to the elimination of dozens of very successful programs that have
helped thousands of single parents and displaced homemakers. It will
harm the ability of women to move into nontraditional jobs, the sort of
high skill-high wage jobs that allow them to move out of the pink
collar ghetto.
I commend my colleagues who have exercised the commitment and
determination to keep these programs alive for the benefit of all
students, and I ask my colleagues to join with me in supporting the
Mink amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague, the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Woolsey].
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Let me remind Members that training women for a livable wage for jobs
that are nontraditional, for the same jobs their counterparts trained
for, the men that earn a livable wage, by training these women for
those jobs, we prevent welfare. In fact, we get people off of welfare.
With welfare reform in our face, we now have the challenge to help
women support their families, to help women who have children move from
welfare to work. We must help these women by supporting them through
vocational education programs that will get them into jobs that pay a
livable wage, the same jobs the males in their lives have that can and
will support a family.
Mr. Chairman, if we do not train women for nontraditional jobs we are
saying to those women, women, stay behind the typewriter, stay as a
service worker, stay as a nurse's aide, but do not compete with the
men, because the men have the jobs that pay a livable wage. We want to
prevent welfare. We want to get families off of welfare. We must, we
must, and we must give women a chance by supporting them in vocational
education. Please support the Mink amendment.
{time} 1730
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I yield to the very distinguished gentlewoman from New
Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
[[Page H5529]]
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on
Rules for yielding to me, the gentleman from New York.
I say that because I know that the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Solomon] has been concerned about questions of set-aside programs and
certainly special populations, and most explicitly I know of his
extraordinary interest in vocational education per se. I want to
explain not only to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] but to
others here, because there is a misperception, particularly a
misperception of the last speaker based on his own experience in the
State legislature that somehow we are leaving the special populations,
particularly women, out there in this legislation without any
protection that the Federal Government or this legislation is going to
have some sort of control or monitoring of the State programs.
I wanted to tell my colleagues that that is a wrong understanding of
what we are trying to do here. The Mink amendment would set up a set-
aside, and some would even say quotas, actually, but precise set-aside
for only those populations. However, the bill is reformed to provide
grants to the States for all special populations and to have, and I
must stress this, to have enforcement mechanisms in there to ensure
that the States do their jobs. That is why I wanted to address this.
For example, the concerns of the special populations under this bill
are accommodated under page 29, which I specifically referenced the
other day when we were talking about this and debating this. This
statement on page 29 refers to how the State has to take certain
actions in accordance with the legislation that include all populations
in specifically displaced homemakers, single parents and pregnant
women.
Further, the legislation does include the necessary enforcement
mechanisms and penalties. If the State application fails to show where
the State will ensure that the special populations meet or exceed the
benchmarks, then the Secretary can disapprove the State application;
that is, the Secretary of Education. In addition, the Secretary and the
Department could also sanction the State by withholding all or part of
the grant.
I think also we must turn to section 115 on accountability, which
mentions in section B, and I am reading now, quoting from the
legislation, B, special populations, the report submitted by the State
in accordance with paragraph (a) shall include, not may, shall include
a description of how special populations, displaced homemakers, single
parents and single pregnant women participating in vocational technical
programs have performed in meeting the vocational technical education
benchmarks established by the State.
Then it goes on to tell how they are required in terms of the funding
to comply with the requirement.
I appreciate the gentleman from New York yielding to me. I hope this
satisfies his questions on the subject.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, it most certainly does. I thank the
gentlewoman for a wonderful explanation.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Mink-Morella-Sanchez amendment to
ensure gender equity in vocational technical education. I urge my
colleagues to support this important amendment.
Mr. Chairman, immediately prior to my election to this body, I served
for 8 years, or two terms, as the elected State superintendent of the
schools of the State of North Carolina. As a former State school chief,
I know firsthand how important gender equity is in vocational
education. According to the 1990 census data, there were more than 15.6
million homemakers in this Nation that were displaced, and a half a
million of those homemakers live in North Carolina. In North Carolina
single mothers care for more than 130,000 children. In my State an
estimated 128,000 families with children live in poverty, and 81,000 or
63.6 percent of those families are headed by women. We must empower
these women to succeed in today's economy.
Mr. Chairman, gender equity has produced significant and positive
results in female enrollment and work force development in North
Carolina. In 1986, there were 140,000 women enrolled in vocational
education. Today in North Carolina that number is 190,000. These
students have a 98 percent completion rate; 84 percent go on to post-
high school education or training at our technical schools or in the
job market.
Female participation in the apprenticeships have an 87 percent
completion rate in their efforts to prepare workers for the work force.
Finally, in North Carolina our gender equity is linked, or maybe I
should say partnered, with our local community groups and with business
groups to match their skills when they come out of the public school.
This arrangement provides for effective use of our resources and
effectively and efficiently expands opportunities.
This amendment would protect efforts serving these displaced
homemakers, single parents and pregnant women. The amendment would
simply require that localities maintain funding at the same level as
they did in 1997 and restore current law with respect to the vocational
education equity coordinators that oversee, coordinate and make sure
that equity is there.
Mr. Chairman, public education is the great equalizer in our society.
By equipping people with the tools they need to make the most of their
God-given talents, we must empower them to achieve the American dream
and to succeed. Every American citizen deserves no less.
Not a guaranteed result, but a guaranteed opportunity. That is what
this Congress ought to do. Sadly, without gender equity, women and
girls will be shortchanged. If we are going to keep raising the bar, we
better make sure that people can jump.
Equity access to education initiatives help women become self-
sufficient and stay off welfare. Gender equity helps women attain
higher skills, higher technical training that is necessary to land the
best jobs in today's economy and will be essential to America's
economic prospects in the 21st century. Without this amendment to H.R.
1853, it would fundamentally change our vocational education policy and
threaten to roll back the clock against gains women have made in the
workplace.
The effect of this change would be to reward localities that have
lagged behind the effort to expand educational opportunity to girls and
women. It would send a signal that this Congress no longer believes
that efforts for girls and women, for displaced homemakers and single
parents should be a priority. That is exactly the wrong signal that we
should be sending in 1997.
Under H.R. 1853, a State can serve no displaced homemakers, no single
parents, no single pregnant women and no individual training for
nontraditional employment and under this bill it would be OK. That is
wrong.
Mr. Chairman, during the previous Congress, Members of this House
launched an all-out attack on public education that was devastating to
the morale of the people who worked in the public schools. I stood with
them shoulder to shoulder. I am here to tell my colleagues today, that
is not going to happen in 1997. We need to stand up for girls and women
and pass this amendment.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mink-Morella amendment.
I do so for the following reasons: First of all, in this body we all
tend to talk in bumper sticker solutions. We all say, families first
agenda. We all say, fix welfare now.
Well, this Mink-Morella amendment is the vehicle that these bumper
stickers are attached to because this is the car that actually solves
some of these problems. The solution does not fit on a bumper sticker.
It is much more complicated than that. It is about getting education
and fairness and equity to some of the people that have the most
difficult time in America getting that education and equity and justice
and fairness.
The Mink-Morella legislation would restore the 10.5 percent set-aside
and also make sure that we have the equity coordinator. We have heard
some speakers get up and say, well, there is no reason for this
legislation. There is no reason to do this.
Prior to the Perkins law in 1984, less than 1 percent, less than 1
percent of all basic State grant money was spent
[[Page H5530]]
for displaced homemakers, and only 0.2 percent of all State and local
matching funds went for these activities. So if we just assume that
these problems are going to be fixed by leaving it up to some magic
wand theory or bumper sticker, then they are not going to get fixed.
Previous speakers have also said that 63 percent of those welfare
families are headed by females. This program is completely oriented
toward helping those people get off of welfare and not tracking them
into low wage, low pay jobs but giving them some of the necessary
skills so that they can work up the ladder and get higher skills and
higher pay down the ladder.
I know that a lot of Members in this body, particularly on the other
side, are concerned about costs. What about costs? Well, I am a strong
advocate of balancing the budget, and costs are certainly one of the
most compelling reasons to vote for the Mink-Morella legislation.
In 1996, sex equity reserves were documented in several States to
reduce welfare expenditures. Let me say that again. In 1996, sex equity
reserves were documented in several States to reduce the welfare
expenditure costs. So making sure that we spend money on education and
training and equity reduces the costs later on on welfare expenditures.
In States like Missouri, they have saved more than $1.4 million in
welfare payments. In Georgia's New Connections to Work Program, they
saved $13 million over 10 years.
Mr. Chairman, if Members want to help some of the most vulnerable
people in America, if they truly want to put families first, if they
want to help us fix welfare and not just put bumper sticker solutions
out there, if we want to do real things to help people, to help single
parents, to help pregnant women, to help displaced homemakers, then
they will vote for the Mink-Morella amendment. They will help put a
vehicle, a car, fueled with gas, with answers, with strength, with
solutions to propel that bumper sticker slogan that wants to put
families first, to fix welfare, they will vote for that vehicle that
will help us solve some of these problems in America.
Vote for the displaced homeworker. Vote for the single parent. Vote
for the pregnant woman. Vote to fix welfare and put our families first.
Vote for the Mink-Morella amendment.
{time} 1745
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to speak in support of the Mink-Morella
amendment to the Carl D. Perkins Vocational-Technical Education Act.
This amendment is essential in preserving an existing program that
effectively serves the needs of girls and women in our vocational
education system.
This amendment provides the programs serving displaced homemakers,
single parents, pregnant women and those that promote gender equity in
vocational education should be held harmless. The whole notion of set-
aside is the same way of saying we hold harmless at the same rates that
we had already, 10.5 percent for these programs.
These programs have proven themselves effective. For instance, in
1996, there was a GAO study entitled ``Employment Training: Successful
Projects Share Common Strategy,'' stating that these programs are very
effective indeed in moving people from welfare to work. Again, a
similar program evaluated in the State of Oregon showed their displaced
homemaker, single parent program, documenting its long-term success in
increasing the number of people who were earning beyond the minimum
wage, from $6.00 per hour to $7.45.
Mr. Chairman, this program indeed is effective. It has indeed proven
what other programs promise to do, and for that reason I am delighted
indeed to support this program.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. CLAYTON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding to me.
Much has been said about the effect of provisions in the legislation
that we are considering today that call for benchmarks and for the
preparation of a State plan which include language for consideration
for displaced homemakers, single parents and pregnant women. I
acknowledged that in the earlier debate last week. But what we are
concerned about is that once submitting a State plan, once acceding to
the idea that there would be benchmarks, there is no enforcement
mechanism.
Under the provisions of this bill, the State could serve not a single
displaced homemaker because there is no way in which there can be any
sort of enforcement, and that is the consequence that we fear.
Most people on both sides of the aisle acknowledge that the funding
that was created 13 years ago, setting aside 10 percent of this program
for the displaced homemaker, for the single parents, was an extremely
worthwhile program. Why create a bill now that is totally different in
its mechanism and risk the chance that some of these programs will fall
by the wayside at the very time when we are enforcing the welfare
reform bill and saying that people on welfare or single parents must
find work activity?
Work activity is vocational training, and they need to have a place
that can give them special attention, recognizing the fact that they
are on welfare and want to make the 12 months that they are entitled to
have of vocational training produce the kind of skills that can
guarantee them a job which can support their family.
That is the whole idea of this, to get women into a position where
they can qualify for nontraditional jobs, make enough money so that
they can support their families.
In the brief time I have left, I wanted to also note that in the
debate on Thursday there was mention that no one has come forth
discussing the needs of this special program for the single parents,
for the pregnant women, displaced homemakers, and for the sex equity
coordinator. Fortunately, Mr. Chairman, many of the people who wrote to
the committee also sent copies to the minority side and we have here a
whole pile of letters that came in.
They are dated early June, mid-June, June 6, June 12, June 8, and so
forth, from people all across the country addressing their concerns to
the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], who is the chair of the
subcommittee. And I am sure that if the staff will look in their files,
they will find many of these letters.
Not only that, there was a witness that testified in the subcommittee
that brought forth the importance of this program and urged the
subcommittee continue the funding of this special emphasis program. So
I am startled that there was reference to the fact that there were no
letters.
At an appropriate time I will ask the House to allow me to insert
these letters in the Record for the benefit of the House.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, today I rise not just as a woman, but also as a single
parent in opposition to the Mink amendment.
H.R. 1853 authorizes funding for vocational-technical education. This
bill benefits women already because it directs funds to local vo-tech
programs giving women the opportunity to receive a quality education.
The bill also requires States to establish benchmarks and show how
these vo-tech programs prepare special students groups: Specifically,
displaced homemakers, single parents, and single pregnant women for
postsecondary education or entry into high-skilled, high-wage jobs. In
this way, Mr. Chairman, this bill actually protects the funds going
into programs for women.
The Mink amendment, however, would mandate that States set aside
funds for local areas to maintain gender-based programs even where they
might not be needed. For example, Washington State is due to receive
more than $19 million for vocational educational spending under title
II and title III of the Carl D. Perkins Act, 90 percent of which will
go directly to the local level.
Under the Mink amendment, more than $2 million of the $19 million
would be reserved, set aside, for gender-based programs that are
already adequately addressed and protected in H.R. 1853.
I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose the Mink amendment and
support the thoughtful, pro-woman bill reported by the committee.
[[Page H5531]]
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman
yield?
Ms. DUNN. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman
for yielding to me. This has been an interesting debate to listen to. I
support the goals of the Mink amendment, I support the gentleman from
Indiana and what his goals are, and the gentleman from Cleveland and
the gentlewomen from the different parts of this country. But what we
are really doing with the Mink amendment is we are going to be putting
a lot more money in bureaucracy and less money in the classroom. It is
a bureaucracy builder.
Historically, we set aside at the State level. The Mink amendment
says that each and every school district must spend no less than it did
in the previous year. That means we have to have a Federal bureaucracy
and a State bureaucracy that will monitor every district in this
country, every vocational school in this country to make sure that they
spend the exact dollar amount that they spent last year. Do we need
this kind of oversight from the Federal Government?
My colleagues keep talking about the welfare-to-work bill. I helped
write Pennsylvania's welfare bill. Every State is targeting the
population of displaced homemakers, single pregnant women and sex
equity program because that is the majority of the welfare population.
They are using Federal and State welfare-to-work moneys to do that. We
have expanded the ability to use the job training moneys in a bill we
recently passed. Many States have promoted and expanded their homemaker
training programs. And any State that wants to meet the Federal mandate
is going to target this population.
The bill, in four different areas, talks about this population, that
it must be part of the plan, it must be a benchmark, we must meet those
goals or they do not get the money. To put a mandate on every
vocational training program in America, that they must spend the exact
same amount as last year, does nothing but create a bureaucracy that
will waste millions of dollars that will train nobody.
I think the Mink amendment, Mr. Chairman, has laudable goals, but I
think it misses the mark. What the gentlewoman is talking about is
happening. Any State that is not making it happen is not going to be
able to implement the welfare reform bill.
It is an unneeded amendment, it is an amendment that will waste
dollars in bureaucracy at the national and at the State level. It will
force every State to hire a $60,000 sex equity coordinator, whether
needed or not. Let us leave that up to the States.
Every State has a built-in incentive to make this happen. This
amendment will only put money into the hands of bureaucrats and not
train displaced homemakers, single pregnant women, or bring sex equity.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the last dialog indicates
that we really do need a mandate to affirmatively ensure that there is
a reality in this bill, and that is that we do have vocational training
for women, and as well that we remedy the equity disparity that comes
across in many instances.
A 1993 CRS report on the educational status of women confirms that
public high school girls participating in vocational educational
programs tend to be clustered in traditionally female occupations and,
as well, an analysis reported in an American Association of University
Women Report, ``How Schools Shortchange Girls'' concluded that the
problem of sex segregation in vocational education programs continues
to exist both at the secondary and postsecondary level.
This particular amendment, does not add amount of moneys for women
vocational programs, homemakers, single parents, pregnant women but
rather it requires States to maintain fiscal year 1997 funding as well
as it provides for an equity gender specialist for each State to make
sure women are treated fairly in vocational training programs.
Let me just simply say, Why do we not have women airplane mechanics,
and there may be some; why are there not more computer technicians, and
there may be some; why are there not more women specializing in the
building trades, and there may be some? The reason is because we need
someone who oversees the programs in the State who says, ``I do not
want to give an incentive, I want to see the job done.''
We want the job done. This is a good amendment to get the job done,
to ensure that women have equal access along with men in training in
unusual vocational trades that traditionally are geared toward men.
In this time when Republicans are pushing welfare to work--let us
give women, single parents, displaced homemakers, pregnant, a fighting
chance to get good high-paying jobs with the right kind of vocational
training.
I clearly think we must pass this amendment, the Mink-Morella-
Sanchez-Woolsey-Millender-McDonald amendment that fairly says to women,
``You, too, can do it.''
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment and thank
Congresswomen Mink, Morella, Sanchez, and Woolsey for their leadership
in protecting vocational and educational programs for women and girls.
This amendment to H.R. 1853 will preserve existing programs serving
the needs of girls and women in our vocational education system. The
amendment will accomplish this by requiring 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.
This amendment is critical to remedy the cuts that have been made in
H.R. 1853. The vocational education reauthorization bill in its current
form eliminates a 10.5-percent set-aside of State moneys required under
current law for these programs. The bill also eliminates the equity
coordinator required in every State to oversee, coordinate, and
evaluate equity initiatives in vocational education.
My colleagues, it is critical that we pass this amendment for while
we have made significant progress in the area of educational equity, to
end our emphasis on these areas now would result in serious setbacks as
illustrated by a 1993 CRS report on the educational status of women.
This study confirms that public high school girls participating in
vocational educational programs tend to be clustered in traditionally
female occupations. Additionally, analysis reported in the American
Association of University Women report, ``How Schools Shortchange
Girls,'' concluded that the problem of sex segregation in vocational
education programs continues to exist at both the secondary and
postsecondary level.
For these reasons I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to pass
this important amendment and in so doing to protect these important
programs. Thank you.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentlewoman from California,
who happens to be a cosponsor of this very good and positive
legislation.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding to me, the gracious gentlewoman from Texas.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard the old adage, I have been there, done
that. As the former director of a gender equity program, I can tell my
colleagues firsthand how successful these programs are. It is not by
happenstance, it is because there was a gender equity coordinator at
the State level that ensured that we followed an accountability trail
of these programs.
I cannot imagine that we are trying to argue with success or even
challenge it. These are successful programs that were done by this
person, who was the director of gender equity programs for the second
largest unified school district in America, the Los Angeles one, and we
simply ensured that those women who were most vulnerable received the
type of access to the vocational programs that gender equity ensured.
What is missing here is the whole notion that one thinks that we can
put this money in vocational programs and those vulnerable groups would
be serviced. Let me just say that these are women who need not only the
vocational training and the skills, but they need the self-esteem, the
self-worth. That is what comes when the gender equity coordinator at
the helm, at the State level, ensures that those of us directors
throughout the Nation and throughout the States provide for these
women.
This amendment, our amendment, is a hold harmless amendment which
does not restore the set-aside that has been
[[Page H5532]]
articulated numerous times, much to my chagrin. The main purpose of the
Perkins Act is to improve the quality of vocational education and to
provide access to quality vocational education for special populations.
I have seen 80 percent of the participants with children, 80 percent
of participants on some form of public assistance be enhanced and
enriched by this Perkins equity program. I say to my colleagues that
those who do not see the need to service those who are most vulnerable,
those who are moving from welfare to work to get gender equity
programs, I feel are short-sighted.
{time} 1800
So I say to my colleague, a person who has been there and done that,
do know the success of this program, gender equity programs, Mr.
Chairman, do work for those women, those pregnant women, the displaced
homemakers, and those who are in need of this program.
I would say to all of my colleagues to support the Mink, et al.
amendment, of which I am one of the cosponsors.
The amendment: This is a hold-harmless amendment which does not
restore the 10.5 percent set-aside, at the State level but rather,
assures that these valuable services to an often overlooked population
continue. The Mink - Morella - Woolsey - Sanchez - Millender- McDonald
amendment would require that localities currently funding such programs
continue to provide funding for these purposes at, at least, the same
level as fiscal year 1997. This amendment would also restore the
requirement that a vocational education equity coordinator exist in
every State.
The main purpose of the Perkins Act is to improve the quality of
vocational education and to provide access to quality vocational
education for special populations such as women who are single mothers
and displaced homemakers. We need this amendment to ensure that we
continue to meet this purpose.
In the Los Angeles Unified School District, where I served as the
director of gender equity programs, the preliminary statistics for the
1996-97 year: 1,642 adult women completed programs offered through the
Perkins grants--several more attended classes but did not complete the
courses; 2,600 teen mothers benefiting from these programs--5,000 total
teen mothers in Los Angeles city school district, 10,000 in Los Angeles
country; ages range from 14 to 62, median age is 30's; 80 percent of
participants have children; 80 percent of participants on some form of
public assistance; 68 percent of participants are Hispanic; 14-16
percent of participants are African-American; and 4-6 percent of
participants are Asian-Americans.
Results of the Los Angeles Unified School District's gender equity
programs: 50 percent of participants are employed after completing
these programs which directly results in reducing the number of people
receiving public assistance.
State of California--98 percent of the Perkins Act funding in 1996
was distributed to local districts in the State of California
These programs help over 1,000 school districts and 107 community
colleges in California regardless of whether they receive the Perkins
funding
Throughout the country the long-term success rate of these single and
displaced homemaker programs is very impressive. in the neighboring
State of Oregon in 1996: Employment rates soared from 28 to 71 percent;
median wage rates increased from $6 per hour to $7.45 per hour; and
dependence on AFDC of the program participants fell from 29 to 15
percent.
In Arizona, women in nontraditional jobs have increased from 7 to 17
percent.
In Georgia, participants' annual salaries increased from an average
of $11,000 prior to participation to an average of $16,500, and the New
Connections to Work Program saved the State $13 million in welfare
savings over 10 years.
In Pennsylvania, these programs saved the State $2.3 million in
welfare savings in the 1994 program year.
MR. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, did you hear objection when previous
speakers who spoke on this subject at some length in earlier days
sought to address the House?
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, no one on this side has spoken more than
once. We have yielded to everybody who spoke. Someone has yielded, Mr.
Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Members who spoke on this amendment last week, have
been allowed to speak again this week with unanimous consent.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, we have not had a single speaker today who
spoke on his or her own time last week. The ones who spoke last week
were yielded time by other speakers. My colleague cannot name one
person who has spoken twice.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina
[Mr. Jones] for his courtesy in yielding and would just note to him, I
must marvel at our colleagues' selective memory in terms of how this
debate has unfolded on the floor.
But my point in seeking to be recognized, Mr. Chairman, is to let our
colleagues know that our bill, as reported out of committee, is a vast
improvement upon current law. It reduces bureaucracy at the Federal and
State government levels, it caps State administrative expenses so that
more dollars can actually reach students, and it decreases mandates on
States and local school districts so that they may create vocational
programs that reflect their own needs and priorities.
The Mink amendment would undercut each of the improvements I have
just mentioned. Rather than allowing States and localities to set their
own priorities based on their own local vocational needs, and I know
that is a radical thought to our friends on the Democratic side of the
aisle, sex equity programs would be mandated. And we have heard several
speakers on this side of the aisle refer to it as just what it is, and
that is a mandate.
All we are doing in this amendment is talking about transferring a
State set-aside down to the local level so a State set-aside becomes a
local set-aside, and we replace a State mandate with a local mandate. I
would love to hear any speaker on the other side of the aisle stand up
and deny that as the case.
This does not make sense. The gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink]
made reference to testimony before the subcommittee. May I remind her
that Paul Cole, the vice president of the American Federation of
Teachers, testified in front our Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth
and Families in support of eliminating set-asides. My colleagues heard
me correct. Paul Cole, vice president of the American Federation of
Teachers.
In fact, I quote from his testimony now. ``Federal legislation should
eliminate set-asides at State and local levels. Funding formulas for
special populations are harmful when they provide an incentive for
schools to retain students in these categories because funding depends
on it.''
Mr. Cole is not alone. He was simply referencing the National
Assessment of Vocational Education, Final Report to Congress, Volume 1,
prepared by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement at the
U.S. Department of Education. I quoted from this report last week, and
I quote again.
There are two major risks in broad-brush efforts to include
more and more special population students in vocational
educational, including the special populations that are
intended to be served by this 10\1/2\ percent set-aside,
10\1/2\ percent of the funding that is taken right off the
top. The first is that factors other than the student's 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. In situations such as this,
some students will benefit for participation in vocational
programs, but others will not.
The second risk with this practice is that vocational
programs, especially those in regional schools, will
increasingly become special needs programs, separated from
the mainstream of secondary education, an outcome that is
opposite to the very intent, the original intent behind the
Perkins Act.
This is clearly dumping. It is a problem. I go on to quote from the
report.
[[Page H5533]]
Special population students are an ever-increasing
proportion of all vocational students, and the Perkins
emphasis on recruiting special population students to
vocational education may be among the factors contributing to
this tendency.
We have tried to rectify that. We have come up with, I think, a good
compromise. We have said in our bill that States and local communities
should be allowed to continue to fund these programs at their choice.
That is perfectly in keeping with the long-standing American tradition
of local control and decentralized decision-making in public education.
Our bill already includes, but it does not mandate, and there is the
difference, support for displaced homemakers, single pregnant women,
and single parents at all levels of State and local vocational
educational programs. We have to take a firm stand against more
mandates on local schools. It is time to practice what you preach if in
fact you do believe that decisionmaking should be vested at the local
level.
So I urge my colleagues to vote against the Mink amendment and to say
no to more mandates for local schools.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, as a long-time supporter of programs
designed to assist displaced homemakers, I support the intent of the
Mink amendment. However, I do have some concerns about the mandate it
would impose upon States.
Since coming to Congress, I have supported transferring more
authority to State and local governments. Too many times, we have
adopted a one size fits all approach when we are establishing new
programs or policies. In many instances, the very people that we are
trying to assist could have been better served if States had been given
the flexibility to create programs designed to address their specific
needs.
While I believe that displaced homemakers should have access to
vocational training, I want to make sure that we are serving their
needs in the most effective way. I believe one way that we can assist
displaced homemakers is by providing a tax credit to employers who hire
and train these individuals. For over 10 years, I have sponsored such
tax credit legislation, and in the 105th Congress, I have reintroduced
this legislation as H.R. 402.
Displaced homemakers are primarily women who have been full-time
homemakers for a number of years, but who have lost their source of
economic support due to divorce, separation, abandonment, or the death
or disability of a spouse. Many displaced homemakers are living at or
near the poverty level, are younger than 35 and have children.
One of every six American women is a displaced homemaker. In 1990,
there were 17.8 million displaced homemakers in the United States. In
my own State of Florida, there were over 1.1 million displaced
homemakers in 1990--a 55-percent increase since 1980.
My bill, H.R. 402, would allow employers a tax credit for hiring
displaced homemakers by establishing them as a targeted group under the
Work Opportunity Tax Credit [WOTC] Program. The WOTC Program is
intended to combat and lessen the problem of structural unemployment
among certain hard-to-employ individuals.
My bill would extend the WOTC to include displaced homemakers. Under
the proposal, employers could apply for a tax credit if they hire these
individuals who are having difficulty reentering the job market.
I see this approach as cost-effective. By providing prospective
employers with the incentive to hire displaced homemakers, we avoid the
much more costly alternative of publicly supporting these homemakers
and their families.
Mr. Chairman, these are people who are in financial need and want to
work. I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 402.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mink
amendment.
I often say the 104th Congress was the most antiwoman Congress I can
remember.
Well, the 105th is catching up.
For 13 years the Perkins Vocational Technical Education Act has
provided funds to ensure that America's women do not miss out on
opportunities to better their lives.
For 13 years these programs have worked.
Displaced home-makers, single parents, pregnant women, and some girls
in vocational schools have been able to count on help from their
government, not to bail them out, but to help them bail themselves out.
It's a fact that vocational education keeps women off welfare.
In Oregon, a recent study documented its long-term success in
increasing employment rates from 28 to 71 percent. Wages increased.
Fourteen percent of the women on welfare got off.
In Arizona, not only did wages increase, but the number of women in
nontraditional jobs increased from 7 to 17 percent.
In Georgia, women benefited from the programs by increasing their
salaries from $11,000 to $16,500.
Now, it's not as if the government handed those people $1,500 raises.
What it did was allow them to earn those raises in the private sector
themselves.
Isn't this why we're here?
Are we not in the business of helping people help themselves?
Is that not what we're trying to do in reforming the Nation's welfare
program?
Many States are reporting that higher wages--achieved through the
vocational program--are keeping women off welfare.
In Pennsylvania, in 1994, the setaside program saved the State $2.3
million in welfare payments.
In Missouri, $1.4 million in welfare payments were recovered.
If this Congress is truly working to get women and children off
welfare, why would it cut a program that helps them do just that?
As my colleagues, Representatives Mink, Morella, Sanchez, and Woolsey
point out, this amendment does not ask for an increase.
It only asks that the 10-percent setaside be preserved.
It restores the vocational education equity coordinator position.
And it keeps the Federal policy on track and consistent.
It shows that our effort to achieve gender equity and to help at-risk
groups such as displaced homemakers and single parents stay off
welfare, get an education, and keep well-paying jobs a priority.
The original intent of this legislation was to make the United States
more competitive by developing more fully the academic and occupational
skills of our citizens.
Our citizens who most need that help are on the verge of being cut
out of the deal.
I urge a vote in support of the Mink amendment.
Mr. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mink
amendment. This proposal will encourage young and middle-aged women to
receive valuable skills training in occupations that have traditionally
been filled by men. It will allow them to get jobs with better pay and
better benefits, and make it easier for women to support their
families. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this important amendment.
The Mink amendment will do all this by protecting the funds that
States currently use for programs that ensure gender equity in
vocational education. Make no mistake--without this protection, these
programs will disappear. The evidence is clear--before 1984, when State
grants were reserved for gender equity programs, only 1 percent of
these grants were actually used for gender equity.
Last year, Republicans passed a bill based on a twisted premise--that
if you push people off the boat, they will somehow learn to swim. The
Republican bill assumed that by shredding the vital social safety net,
jobs would magically appear for people. This strategy is not only
cruel, it is wrong--without help in learning to swim, many people will
drown.
If Congress is really serious about encouraging women to achieve
financial independence, then Congress should make sure all women have
the opportunity to obtain the tools they need to find a good job and
support their families. The Mink amendment would provide these
opportunities. I urge all of you to vote yes on the Mink amendment.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I object to the vote on the ground
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum
is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii
[Mrs. Mink] will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Klink
Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Klink: Page 30 strike lines
5 through 9, and insert the following:
``(2) Information dissemination.--
``(A) State requirements.--Each State shall make the
information contained in reports described under paragraph
(1) available to the general public through publication and
other appropriate methods which may include electronic
communication.
``(B) Secretary requirements.--The Secretary shall make the
information contained
[[Page H5534]]
in such reports available to the general public through
publication and other appropriate methods which may include
electronic communication.
Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, I will not take all the 5 minutes. My
understanding is that the majority has agreed to accept this amendment.
I am pleased that we are here today to work on this bill reauthorizing
the Perkins Vocational Technical Education Act.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and the gentleman from
California [Mr. Riggs], the chairmen, and the gentleman from Missouri
[Mr. Clay], the ranking member, and the gentleman from California [Mr.
Martinez] are to be commended for maintaining our country's commitment
to vocational education.
This amendment is really quite simple. It will require each State to
make the report required in the accountability section of this bill
available to the public. The bill requires the Secretary of Education
to make these reports available to the public. Local grant recipients
are required to make the performance information available to the
public.
My amendment would ensure that each State will make its report to the
Secretary available in that State in the same manner that this
legislation requires the Secretary to make these reports available on a
national basis. What we are talking about is a bipartisan strive toward
openness. That way, information about vocational-technical education
program performance will be disseminated in the widest manner possible.
This amendment will provide for further accountability in vocational
education. I would urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment. The amendment
would require States to make the information contained in their report
on how the State is performing in regard to their State benchmarks
available to the public. This is consistent with the provisions of the
bill which require the Secretary and local districts to make the
information available to the public. We do accept the amendment.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. We have no
objection to the amendment, and we accept it.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink].
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts:
Page 52, after line 15, insert the following (and
redesignate any subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
``(8) providing an on-site workforce development
coordinator who will coordinate activities described in this
section with an emphasis on developing additional curricula
in cooperation with local area businesses;''.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment
really gets to the heart of whether or not we are serious about
reforming our voc education and really the general practice of whether
or not we are going to be encouraging our young people in this country
to go on and continue their education.
We hear statistics across America today that tell us if we are really
interested in the education of our young people, we ought to recognize
that we ought to look at them in terms of the 25 percentile. The top 25
percent of all American children go on to college or even higher
education beyond college. They do very very well for themselves.
The next 25 percent struggles to get through high school but gets
some sort of additional education. The third 25 percent in fact
struggles to just get through high school. And the bottom 25 percent
never even finishes high school.
The truth of the matter is, if we are serious about encouraging that
bottom 50 percent to do anything more than they are currently doing,
and as I just came from a hearing in the Committee on Banking, where
chairman Alan Greenspan condemned all of the efforts dealing with job
training in this country, it seems to me that it is critically
important that we, in fact, take a look at what is really working
around America.
What we find is, and I think even the chairman of the committee would
agree, that there are a number of innovative and creative programs. For
instance, the BIC in the city of Boston that works hand in glove with
the local business community to help assist to develop a curriculum
with the high schools to make certain that--in fact where I come from,
the city of Boston, we have an important high-technology industry--that
going to a high school where you are learning reading, arithmetic, and
basic languages might be helpful but it might be very discouraging for
a poor child from the inner city who does not know what in fact those
courses are going to actually have to do with their ability to be able
to handle or deal with the real crises and the real issues that they
face in their day-to-day lives.
What we found is that by getting a coordinator who actually works
with the business community and the high schools to begin to set a
curriculum where in fact the high school student knows that if he
completes a set of courses outside of the curriculum that the high
school itself would set working with the school committee, but works on
additional courses that are set by the business community, the business
community then agrees to in fact provide after-school opportunities,
summer youth jobs, that in fact the kids have an enormously high
success rate. We have been able to see children move directly from high
schools into jobs after high school and from those particular instances
their rate of actually going back and continuing their education, going
on to community college and in many instances 4-year schools, have been
much, much higher than the population in general.
What this amendment would do is allow for the use of a coordinator, a
work force coordinator to work with the business community at the level
across our country, using voc educational funds to work with that
business community to help set a curriculum with the high schools and
through that curriculum to then ask our business community to then
provide after-school programs and summer youth jobs for our kids.
It, in fact, is a program that works. And I am surprised that there
would be any opposition to the simple use of a coordinator to work with
the business communities and the local high schools in order to
accomplish what seems to me to be a fairly reasonable and easy goal to
deal with.
However, in negotiations with the other side of the aisle, it has
come out that in fact the use of the word coordinator somehow gets a
yellow flag on the field of the Congress of the United States. If you
use anything involving the word coordinator, somehow or another there
is a group of people in this country that are going to scream that we
are somehow setting the agenda of our high school students and somehow
we are going to be teaching them about sex or some other thing that has
absolutely nothing do with what this amendment is all about.
What we are trying to accomplish here is dealing with the real needs
of real people, the young people of America that are the future of this
country. This is not about any kind of ideology. This is just
straightforward talk about what works in America today. If we want to
stand here and pass a voc-ed bill that continues programs that will not
work, we just heard them talking and yacking about the fact that there
are going to be mandates.
{time} 1815
We mandate that we are not going to hurt women, but we do not do
anything to make certain that women, young girls, are going to be
encouraged to continue and get better jobs.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts was allowed to
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the truth of the matter
is that what we are trying to accomplish here is a straightforward
approach to actually getting our young people of this country educated
in the kinds of jobs, not just the kind of jobs that would be good in
Boston but the kind
[[Page H5535]]
of jobs that would be good in Missouri, the kind of jobs that would be
good in Pennsylvania, the kind of jobs that would be good in California
or Hawaii or Virginia or any other State. Let the local people decide
exactly what kind of jobs that is appropriate for their local high
schools to set up. But encourage those young people. If one goes into
high schools today and tells all those kids in high schools in the
inner city that they can go on to a 4-year college or to community
college and then ask them whether or not they intend to go, what they
will find is 50 percent or more of the kids say they have no intention
of going to college. Ask them why, and they say they do not think they
can afford it, they do not think they can attain college. What this
program will do is set up a track where these kids will get the kind of
job training, get the kind of encouragement from the local business
community that I think will make them a success in life.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, we have to make sure that we understand that this
amendment would add support for a work force development coordinator at
schools as an allowable use of funds under this bill. As the gentleman
from Massachusetts recalled, we had a discussion regarding this issue
during the debate on the job training bill earlier this year, at which
time I said I would be happy to work with the gentleman when we
considered the vocational education bill, and I think that our bill
accommodates his concerns without specifically allowing for funding of
a work force coordinator.
I understand the gentleman's concern that he is trying to get at it
through his amendment, but our bill does not currently list support for
any specific staff. The Federal Government should not outline what
staff may or may not be hired by a school. However, what this bill does
is list a number of activities as allowable uses of funds for
vocational technical education programs at the local level that allow
for the types of activities that I believe his amendment is trying to
achieve.
Under this bill, local school districts and postsecondary
institutions may use funds for involving parents, businesses, and
representatives of employers in the design and implementation of
vocational technical education programs. That is already an allowable
use of funds. Allowable use of funds, providing guidance and
counseling. Allowable use of funds, providing work-related experience,
and business and education partnerships. All of this is in the present
bill.
I believe that coordination activities with employers are implicitly
included in these allowable activities, but again without specifically
mentioning any support personnel that would be employed at local
schools. In fact, this legislation does not specifically spell out
support for any staff, not teachers, administrators, counselors, or
coordinators.
If the gentleman had had the experience, as many of us had, during
the last 3 years trying to put together a job training bill, he would
understand how those 2 words in a piece of legislation, would as a
matter of fact take, I would imagine, 80 votes from his side and 150
votes from my side. We carefully made sure that we did not get caught
in the trap that we were caught in for a couple of years on the job
training bill and had to work our way through it. If we say that we
will have a work force coordinator, that just raises all sorts of
problems for both sides of the aisle. I would hope that the gentleman
would either withdraw the amendment or I would hope we could defeat the
amendment because if we do not, in my estimation we cannot pass the
bill.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODLING. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
Mr. Chairman, in the gentleman's opinion a few minutes ago, I thought
the number was we were going to lose 40 Democrats, and now I understand
the gentleman feels we would lose 80 Democrats, but setting that aside,
if we were not going to lose any Democrats, does the gentleman feel
substantively that this is the proper way of handling this particular
piece of legislation?
Mr. GOODLING. I believe in this legislation we now do much of what
the gentleman is trying to do without specifically authorizing a work
force development coordinator in a high school or a secondary tech
school.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I just would point out that while I
recognize and I think that the gentleman has attempted to cover many of
the activities that the coordinator would in fact be responsible for, I
think that the gentleman has also voiced great concern over mandates
without providing the resources that are necessary in order to fulfill
those mandates. So by standing there and saying or suggesting that we
are going to ask these schools to accomplish all of these goals but
then not giving them any staff to actually be able to follow through on
those promises, I am very concerned that we end up with simply a hollow
bill, and I think that the gentleman and others on his side would voice
the same concern, that we are simply sending out signals but we are
doing nothing to actually follow through and give people the tools that
are necessary to fulfill those goals.
Mr. GOODLING. Again, let me repeat, that when the gentleman mentions
a work force development coordinator at schools, the gentleman is
asking for the bill, in my estimation, to be defeated. I can only tell
the gentleman from 3 years' experience trying to put together a job
training bill, it is this kind of language and that will get us in
trouble again.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, let me first say that I appreciate the comments of the
chairman of the committee making it clear that he does not have
substantive opposition to what this amendment intends to do. He does
have concerns apparently with semantics and with the politics of
certain code words and all, and I appreciate that. I am not surprised,
though, to see him behind what such an important amendment attempts to
do.
Maybe we can call it something other than a work force coordinator,
but that is exactly what our schools need. I appreciate the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] offering the amendment, because it is
time we stopped just talking and started doing something about this
issue.
In the Washington metropolitan area, we have 19,000 jobs related to
computers that we cannot fill. The average salary is $47,000. Thousands
of these jobs do not require any kind of college education. And what
are we doing? We are going to India, we are going to Pakistan, we are
going to Ireland--some people might not object to that--but
nevertheless we are going every place we can find to find people to
fill these jobs at very low wages. Yet they do not require any skills
that our high school graduates cannot acquire, it is just that our high
school graduates have not acquired those skills because they did not
have the benefit of a vocational education curriculum.
We have thousands of young people in this Washington area who are
desperate to find jobs. What a disservice that we have done to them.
They get out of high school and they have virtually nothing to take
with them when they go looking for a job. No skills, minimal education,
little work preparation. Why? Because our schools are not geared up in
many ways to create a match between the jobs that are available and the
kids that can fill them. What a crying shame to have thousands of kids
desperate for jobs, desperate for employment, desperate to find a way
to support their family and yet also to have thousands of jobs
unfilled.
That is what this amendment is all about. It is about trying to get
someone who is going to make that match, who is going to work for the
kids by working between the schools and the businesses, to consult with
businesses, bring them in, tell the kids what jobs are available, what
they pay, and then to help put together the kind of curricula that is
going to be relevant for the jobs that are available. Unfortunately,
what has happened is that many of our vocational education schools have
become a dumping ground. In many ways voc ed means a dumping ground,
primarily for disruptive students. This is the attitude that this
amendment can help change.
In the District of Columbia we have a voc ed school, and it could
have become
[[Page H5536]]
a good one. What happened was that the other schools started putting
their most disruptive students in that school, and now it is virtually
a reform school. They are not going to like me to say that, so I will
not give the specific name of the school. But it is not serving their
needs. What a crying shame. Yet if we had this kind of liaison between
the business community and the school system, we could serve a lot of
their needs. We desperately need their talents and their skills. We
need to develop vocational education as an immediate step to getting a
good job, to being able to go to an employer with the kind of skills
and basic education and attitude that they are looking for.
So our school system is disserving these kids. Are we really going to
pass this kind of bill, the Perkins bill here without addressing this
most critical need? I would hope not. I would hope that we would pass
this amendment, that we would underscore the need to bring the business
community in for its own self-interest, in influencing the curricula,
in giving the real opportunity, the real access to the jobs that are
available to these kids who desperately need them.
This is an important amendment. I would urge my colleagues' strong
support for it. I appreciate the support of the chairman of the
committee. I know that the ranking member of the full committee from
Missouri is very strongly in support of vocational education. I thank
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] for introducing it. I
would certainly expect and hope that this body would pass it
overwhelmingly.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to the gentleman from Virginia
that we had a field hearing just across the Potomac River at Thomas
Jefferson High School, which I believe is close to his congressional
district, in fact he was good enough to stop in at the hearing briefly.
And we saw that at Thomas Jefferson High School--which is one of the
most outstanding academic high schools in the country with a long
record of national merit semifinalists and a tremendous history of
sending kids to the top 4-year colleges and universities in the
country--they are doing this already. They are working closely with the
private sector. They have extensive private sector involvement in the
design of their curriculum. They have the private sector involved in
any number of internships, job shadowing opportunities, and mentoring
types of activities. This is all done without the need for an on-site
work force development coordinator--which is a classic example of how
we micromanage Federal legislation.
I do not quarrel that the gentleman is well-intentioned. But I do
point out that his amendment does represent micromanagement. It is in
fact not necessary because under the bill, if we look at the section of
the bill dealing with permissible activities, we will see that we allow
and encourage local school districts and postsecondary institutions to
use funding for involving parents, businesses and representatives of
employers in the design and implementation of vocational-technical
education programs, to provide career guidance and academic counseling,
to provide work-related experience, as I just mentioned, and to help
form business-education partnerships in the local communities.
{time} 1830
So the Kennedy amendment is a classic example of overkill and
micromanagement.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. GOODLING. Did the gentleman say that the outstanding Thomas
Jefferson School near our colleague from Virginia's district, is
already doing all of these things and the Federal Government did not
have to mandate it and did not tell them they had to do that?
Mr. RIGGS. Reclaiming my time, the distinguished gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] is so right. In fact we learned from the
example of Thomas Jefferson High School. We acted upon the testimony
that we heard at our hearing. In our bill, we have said under the
section dealing with the permissible uses of funds, that the funding
can be used by local institutions--a high school or regional vocational
school--to provide, and I quote now from the bill, work-related
experience such as internships, cooperative education, school-based
enterprises--like we also saw up in Delaware where the kids are running
a bank at Wilmington High School--entrepreneurship and job shadowing.
They are all related to vocational-technical education programs.
What we do not do again is attempt to micromanage, we do not dictate,
we do not spell out that local schools should use any of the funding to
pay for the salaries and benefits of local personnel. We do not,
anywhere in the legislation, talk about support for any staff; not
teachers, administrators, counselors, or coordinators.
So I join the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] in urging
the gentleman to withdraw his amendment with the understanding that the
type of coordination activities that he wants to see, that we all want
to see take place between local secondary schools and local employers,
are already allowed under our bill for vocational-technical education
programs.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy],
my friend and colleague.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I just want to deal with
a couple of the arguments that have been made. As my colleagues know,
the idea that there are not innovative and creative vocational
educational programs, that there are not young people that are
attending those schools that are not going on to do tremendous things
has nothing to do with what we are trying to suggest in this amendment.
Of course there are, and we should recognize and encourage those
activities, and where they are accomplished without the assistance of a
coordinator is terrific.
But the vast majority of the kids that we are designing programs to
help and assist are the kids that are falling through the cracks. We do
not need to have programs for kids that are A students and are doing
terrifically. The reason why we are having these programs is to make
certain that the kids that are currently not achieving everything they
can in this country can have an opportunity to go out and become all
they can be.
That is what this is about, and it is trying to suggest that we give
them opportunity, if we get them to work with their local businesses
and get the businesses to recognize that the young people that are in
their communities have all the future of this country in front of them.
As my colleagues know, the fact of the matter is I come from the
State of Massachusetts. The State of Massachusetts has more college
graduates per capita than any other State in the Nation. That is
something we are extremely proud of. I have 60 colleges in my own
congressional district, more than 26 other States in one congressional
district.
The fact of the matter is that we have a first-rate education system,
but within that there are still so many of the kids that end up falling
through the cracks. In my district I have some of the poorest Hispanic
kids in the United States. I have the minority influence district. Go
into the poorer high schools and find out whether they think they can
go to Harvard University or whether they can go to MIT. They do not
think they can. None of those kids feel that they are going to be
participants in the so-called greatness of America's education.
These are the kids that we need to reach out to. They can; in fact 50
percent, despite the fact that Massachusetts is No. 1 in terms of
higher education, 50 percent of all the adults in the State of
Massachusetts have nothing more than a high school education. Fifty
percent of them. We still have dropout rates of 25, 35, and 40 percent
in many of our major cities and urban areas of our country. Those are
the kids that we need to reach out to. They are not bad kids. We need
to reach out and let them know that they count and that they are
important and that our businesses will value them because those
businesses will one day be employing them. And if we can establish that
relationship early on in their lives and make certain that they know
that
[[Page H5537]]
those companies, those high-technology companies, the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Moran] talked about 19,000 here in the Washington area.
The fact is that there are HVAC companies, there are diesel engine
companies, there are all sorts of technical skills that our young
people are simply not learning, and the companies do not have the
access to those local high schools to know and be able to set the kind
of curriculum that is going to allow them to learn those skills. Let
them have that opportunity. Do not deny them because there is a few
Members of either party that are sitting there saying that this is
going to be sex education. Do not do that. Do not buckle to that.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues should stand up and say what is right.
What is right is that we provide that coordinator. Let them in fact. Do
not buckle to some right wing or left wing or anybody else's wing.
Stand up for the kids; that is what this bill is supposed to be about.
Stand up for the kids, pass this amendment.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make sure that we think
this the whole way through. Where do we stop if we want every child to
reach their potential? Would it not be a good idea to mandate that we
have a military coordinator in every school? It seems to me there is
great potential by joining the armed services, even to get a college
degree, but certainly to get all sorts of training. So where do we
stop? Where do we decide that the Federal Government no longer should
mandate?
And I think we make a big mistake when we go down the line of
determining for local school districts who it is they should hire.
The program is working well at the present time with the coordination
that is available. The activity is allowable in the legislation but we
do not mandate any personnel. It does not matter whether it is an
administrator or a teacher--we do not mandate personnel. We allow the
local level to make that decision.
Again, we need to remember that when we start down this slippery
slope, I can see all sorts of wonderful things that a military
coordinator could do to help young people reach their potential, but I
certainly would not mandate it.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PETRI. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I have to tell my colleagues I am now
perplexed a little bit about the Kennedy amendment because I am looking
at the gentleman's Dear Colleague, and I quote:
This person, referring to the work force development
coordinator, would help develop courses in addition to the
core curriculum, and I always thought that the design of that
curriculum, that local curriculum, was the responsibility of
the locally elected school board. That is certainly in
keeping with the longstanding American tradition.
And second, the gentleman talks about this individual again
helping familiarize young people with college opportunities
or college possibilities and maybe encouraging them to set
their sights high and to apply to attend a 4-year
institution.
Yet again I read from his Dear Colleague. He says:
This person would educate our students about career
possibilities in their own hometown and help students obtain
jobs in the local economy. This acts as a local job placement
service run at a local high school, and that is contrary to
the idea of encouraging more young people to go to college.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Petri] yield?
Mr. PETRI. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. First of all, as my colleagues know, we
have heard a lot of talk about mandates. I just like to point out that
all this is is a permissible activity. There is no mandate. I mean I
think it should be a mandate, but I did not write it because I did not
think we could get enough votes if we wrote it as an absolute mandate.
So it is just a permissible activity.
And I would just say to the gentleman, through the gentleman from
Wisconsin to the gentleman from California, that all we are trying to
suggest here is that of course the core curriculum is going to be set
by the local school committee. We want to involve the local school
committee and everyone else in this activity. But unless we provide
them a coordinator who can work with the business community in order to
accomplish this, you will get our top tier, the top 10 or 20 or 30
percent that will take care of this anyway. We are talking about the
kind of high schools that maybe do not exist in my colleague's district
but certainly exist in mine, the kind of high schools that are really
struggling, that are having a very hard time. Go to those high schools'
principals and ask them whether or not they would like to have a
coordinator that can work with the local community and work with their
businesses.
Mr. PETRI. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Riggs]
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, colleagues, let us apply the commonsense
test here for a moment. Will one work force development coordinator,
paid through Federal taxpayer funds, be able to do what the locally
elected school board cannot?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. It can help.
Mr. RIGGS. And a locally elected school board, it seems to me, is
accountable to and responsive, we hope responsive, to the local
community, not a federally funded work force development coordinator
who is not an elected official and therefore really not accountable to
the community at all.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I find this debate interesting. I would like to ask the
Members here today how many of them would like to have a partner in
their business that provides 7 percent of the capital and wants to run
the business? We provide about 7 percent of the money in this country
for vocational education, and here we sit in Washington and we want to
say how it is best to do it in all 50 States, and we provide 7 percent.
We ought to be ashamed of ourselves. If there is one message that I
have received from educators as a local leader, as a State house member
and a State senator, was get Washington out of our school districts. We
get a little bit of money from them, and most of our people are
spending the bulk of their time trying to deal with Federal
bureaucracies and Federal rules.
And then we get down to this issue, and on page 52 of the bill it
says providing career guidance counseling, almost providing work-
related experience such as internships, cooperative education, school-
based enterprises, entrepreneurship, job shadowing that are related to
vocational technical education programs, programs for single parents,
displaced homemakers, single pregnant women, local education and
business partnerships, vocational student organizations, mentoring and
support services.
Now we do not tell them who they have to hire. We just gave some
guidelines of directions that the programs ought to cover, and that is
all we should do. At the Federal level, we are wrong when we provide.
If we were doing 70 percent of the money, I might agree with my
colleague. Seven percent of the money, and we want to run the voc-tech
schools, and that is wrong.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that,
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman have an amendment?
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a moment before I go
to that if I could.
Mr. Chairman, as I have reviewed the goings on here, I first want to
compliment the chairman and the ranking
[[Page H5538]]
member for the things that they have done to try to bring some sense to
it and some of the amendments; I appreciate that.
Some of my colleagues may not know, but I come from a State that has
a lot of diverse situations. I have got some rural area and some urban
area, got some rural area that is very sparse, very poor, and I am very
concerned about does this really cover the things that are needed, does
this really provide those much-needed things?
Some of my colleagues may not be familiar with what we term as the
farm crisis that took place in the 1980's, but I can tell my colleagues
that a lot of the small schools are very poor but are trying to offer
equal opportunity in a State that is known for its education,
particularly the K-12. In fact, all of its education.
And so I have some concerns that we look out for these folks. So I
have offered an amendment that would in fact add some resources to the
process we are doing here today.
{time} 1845
But I am told after I have dropped it that maybe this is all being
taken care of. I understand that the 10 percent has been divided 5 and
5. What I was trying to do, Mr. Chairman, was to say in a permissive
manner that the States could add another 5 percent if they chose to do
so. I am informed that this is provided for in the process.
I wonder if I could engage the honorable gentleman from California
[Mr. Riggs] in a short, wing-it colloquy, if I could.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOSWELL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, as opposed to our normally very carefully
scripted colloquies, I would be happy to engage in a colloquy with the
gentleman.
First of all, let me point out to him that under the chairman's
manager's amendment we were able to reach a bipartisan agreement on
probably the most sensitive and delicate issue of all, and that is the
intrastate or substate funding formula change.
Under that amendment, States will be allowed to reserve up to 5
percent of their allotment for a rural reserve and up to 5 percent
additional for grants to urban areas, or an urban reserve. I have to
tell the gentleman that the amendment he intended to offer was
perfectly consistent with the creation of the 10-percent reserve under
the bill and under the manager's amendment of both a 5-percent rural
reserve and a 5-percent urban reserve.
Furthermore, I want to point out to the gentleman that under the
bill, the Secretary of Education may grant a waiver to States that can
demonstrate they have a better way of distributing funds. In other
words, the Secretary can grant a waiver to any State, and I quote now
from the bill, ``* * *that demonstrates that a proposed alternative
formula more effectively targets funds on the basis of poverty.'' That
is virtually verbatim language to the gentleman's amendment, using the
definition of poverty as defined by the Office of Management and Budget
and revised annually in accordance with section 673, subparagraph 2 of
the Community Services Block Grant Act.
So I am glad I have an opportunity to engage in a colloquy with the
gentleman, to thank him on his well-intentioned amendment, but also to
point out because of the changes that already are incorporated in the
bill, I feel that his amendment is not necessary. I hope this colloquy
does in fact strengthen those sections of the bill that are compatible
with the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. BOSWELL. I think it has. Mr. Chairman, I just want to want the
gentleman, by nodding or even commenting, to assure me that the
flexibility is there in what is being offered for the States to do the
very thing that I was suggesting in this amendment that is in place,
and if they choose to have need to put more into it, they can go
through this process the gentleman has outlined and have that
opportunity.
Mr. RIGGS. That is correct. If the gentleman will continue to yield,
the language in the bill allows, and again, I believe encourages, the
States to use up to 10 percent of the money to drive those funds to the
areas of greatest economic need and highest poverty, and again, that is
very consistent with what the gentleman is proposing.
Mr. BOSWELL. They can add to that, the vehicle that is in place, they
can add to that if they go through the process the gentleman has
described.
Mr. RIGGS. Under the alternative secondary formula, they can drive
all of their money to areas of greatest economic need and high poverty
areas, if in fact they can demonstrate that the formula will do just
that to the satisfaction of the Secretary of Education.
Mr. BOSWELL. I thank the gentleman very much.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Boswell] has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Boswell was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOSWELL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, the last comment made by the chairman of
the committee, the alternative formula, the gentleman understands that
in a State like his, where his State can prove that the formula
difference they come up with is targeted to a higher poverty area than
the original formula, in other words, that they are really addressing
the population with the greatest need, then that waiver will be given.
So the percentage, rather than 5 or 10, or it could be 15, 20, whatever
the State would determine its greatest need is.
Mr. BOSWELL. I thank both gentlemen from California for their hard,
conscientious work. I think they have met my concern. Therefore, I will
not offer the amendment. I thank them for this exchange.
Mr. RIGGS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman,
just so I can reinforce the point just made by my good friend and the
ranking member of the subcommittee, he is absolutely correct that we
have provided in the bill for a waiver in that situation, where the
State demonstrates that, and again I quote from the bill, now, ``A
proposed alternative formula more effectively targets funds on the
basis of poverty.''
So again, the language that is already in the bill would seem to do
pretty much what the gentleman would like to do with his amendment.
Therefore his amendment, I believe, is unnecessary, but hopefully this
colloquy will now not only underscore the gentleman's concerns, but
strengthen the intent of the language already included in the bill.
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank both Members for their response. I
feel reassured, and I will not offer the amendment. I look forward to
us pressing on.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN. If there are no other amendments, pursuant to the order
of the House of today, proceedings will now resume on those amendments
on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order:
amendment No. 5 offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink]; and
amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy].
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mrs. Mink of Hawaii
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate 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)--
(i) 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):
[[Page H5539]]
``(4) sex equity programs;''.
Page 34, after line 5, insert the following:
``(e) Hold Harmless.--Notwithstanding the provisions of
this 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''.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 207,
noes 214, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 286]
AYES--207
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilman
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOES--214
Aderholt
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--13
Archer
Dingell
Fattah
Frost
Gonzalez
Kennedy (RI)
McDade
McIntyre
Mollohan
Ney
Schiff
Stabenow
Young (AK)
{time} 1911
Mr. GANSKE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Announcement By The Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the Chair
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of
time within which a vote by electronic device will be taken on the
additional amendment on which the Chair has postponed further
proceedings.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy], on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189,
noes 230, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 287]
AYES--189
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Neal
Ney
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
[[Page H5540]]
NOES--230
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boyd
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Packard
Pappas
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--15
Cox
Frost
Gephardt
Jefferson
Kennedy (RI)
Maloney (CT)
McDade
Mollohan
Oberstar
Oxley
Parker
Schiff
Stabenow
Thomas
Young (AK)
{time} 1921
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall Nos. 286, and 287, had I been
present, I would have voted ``yes'' on recorded vote 286, the Mink
amendment and ``no'' on recorded vote 287, the Kennedy amendment.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, over the past 35 years, Congress has
constructed a centralized system of vocational education, wasting
millions of taxpayer dollars on a system that all-too-often serves more
as a ``dumping ground'' for special-needs students than as an effective
means of providing noncollege bound students with the knowledge and
skills they need to become productive citizens.
Congress is considering prolonging the life of large parts of this
system by reauthorizing the Carl Perkins Vocational Education and
Applied Technology Act (H.R. 1853). While 1853 does eliminate several
Federal programs and State mandates contained in current law, if
further legitimizes the unconstitutional notion that the Federal
Government has a legitimate role to play in education.
Furthermore, certain language in H.R. 1853 suggests that the purpose
of education is to train students to serve the larger needs of society,
as determined by Government and business, not to serve the individual.
During the discussion of this bill, the case has been made that
constitutionalists should support H.R. 1853 because it reduces the
number of Federal mandates on the States; however the 10th amendment
does not quantify the extent to which the Federal Government can
interfere in areas such as education. Instead, the 10th amendment
forbids any and all Federal interference in education, no matter how
much flexibility the programs provide the States.
H.R. 1853 represents mandate federalism, where the Federal Government
allows States limited flexibility as to the means of complying with
Congress mandates. Under this bill, States must submit a vocational
education plan to the Department of Education for approval. States must
then demonstrate yearly compliance with benchmarks that measure a
series of federally set goals. The Secretary of Education has the
authority to sanction the States for failure to reach those benchmarks,
as if the States were the disobedient children of the Federal
Government, not entities whose sovereignty must be constitutionally
respected.
Congress has, so far, resisted pressure from the administration to
give the Department of Education explicit statutory authority to create
model benchmarks, which would then be adopted by every State. However,
certain provisions of H.R. 1853 may provide the Department of Education
with the opportunity to impose a uniform system of vocational education
on every State in the Nation.
Particularly troublesome in this regard is the provision requiring
every State to submit their vocational education plan to the Secretary
for approval. The Secretary may withhold approval if the application is
in violation of the provisions of this act. Ambitious bureaucrats may
stretch this language to mean that the Department can reject a State
plan if the Department does not feel the plan will be effective in
meeting the goals of the bill. For example, a Department of Education
official may feel that a State's plan does not adequately prepare
vocational-technical education students for opportunities in
postsecondary education or entry into high skill, high wage jobs,
because the plan fails to adopt the specifications favored by the
Education Department. The State plan may thus be rejected unless the
State adopts the academic provisions favored by the administration.
H.R. 1853 further opens the door for the establishment of national
standards for vocational education through provisions allowing the
Secretary to develop a single plan for evaluation and assessment, with
regard to the vocational-technical education and provide for an
independent evaluation, of vocational-technical education programs,
including examining how States and localities have developed,
implemented, or improved State and local vocational-technical education
programs. Education bureaucrats could very easily use the results of
the studies to establish de facto model benchmarks that States would
have to follow.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of Education may impose national
standards on State vocational education programs by requiring that
States improve the academic component of vocational education.
Integrating academics with vocational education is a noble goal, but
Federal education bureaucrats may use this requirement to force
vocational education programs to adopt national academic standards,
upon pain of having their State plans denied as inconsistent with the
provisions of the act mandating instead that States integrate academics
into their vocational education programs.
States are also required to distribute their Federal funds according
to a predetermined formula that dictates the percentage of funds States
must spend on certain federally approved activities without regard for
differences between the States. For example, H.R. 1853 singles out
certain populations, such as displaced homemakers and single parents,
and requires the States to certify to the Federal Government that their
programs are serving these groups. These provisions stem from the
offensive idea that without orders from the Federal Government, States
will systematically deny certain segments of the population access to
job training services.
Another Federal mandate contained in this so-called decentralization
plan, is one requiring States to spend a certain percentage on updating
the technology used in vocational education programs. Technological
training can be a useful and necessary part of vocational education,
however, under the Constitution it is not the business of the Federal
Government to ensure vocational education students receive up-to-date
technological training.
The States and the people are quite capable of ensuring that
vocational education students receive up-to-date technological
training--if the Federal Government stops usurping their legitimate
authority to run vocational education programs and if the Government
stops draining taxpayers of the resources necessary to run those
programs.
H.R. 1853 provides businesses with taxpayer-provided labor in the
form of vocational education students engaging in cooperative
education. Since businesses benefit by having a trained work force,
they should not burden the taxpayers with the costs of training their
future employees. Furthermore, the provision allowing students to spend
alternating weeks at work rather than in the classroom seems
inconsistent with the bill's goals of strengthening the academic
component of vocational education.
Work experience can be valuable for students, especially when that
experience involves an occupation the student may choose as a future
career. However, there is no reason for taxpayers to subsidize the job
training of another. Furthermore, if it wasn't for Federal minimum wage
and other laws that make hiring inexperienced workers cost prohibitive,
[[Page H5541]]
many businesses would gladly provide work apprenticeships to young
people out of their own pockets instead of forcing the costs onto the
U.S. taxpayer.
Today, employers can be assessed huge fines if they allow their part-
time adolescent employees to work, with pay, for 15 minutes beyond the
Department of Labor regulations. Yet, those same businesses can receive
free, full-time labor from those same adolescents as part of a
cooperative education program. Clearly, common sense has been tossed
out the window and replaced by the arbitrary and conflicting whims of a
Congress attempting to do good.
Further evidence of catering to well-established businesses can be
found within the provision of H.R. 1853 wherein teachers are instructed
not to meet the needs and expectations of students, but rather the
needs, expectations, and methods of industry. All education, including
vocational education, should explicitly be tailored to the wishes of
the parent or those already funding the costs of education.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1853 continues the Federal education policy of
dragooning parents into education as partners in the education process.
Parents should control the education process, but they should never be
placed in a subordinate role and made to help carry out the agenda of
Government bureaucrats.
Concerns have been raised that vocational education programs may be
used as a means to force all students into a career track not of their
own choosing, and thus change the American education system into one of
preparation for a career determined for the students by the Government.
Such a system more closely resembles something depicted in a George
Orwell novel than the type of education system compatible with a free
society. H.R. 1853 attempts to assuage those fears through a section
forbidding the use of Federal funds to force an individual into a
career path that the individual would not otherwise choose or require
any individual to obtain so-called skilled certificates.
However, States and localities that violate this portion of the act
are not subject to any loss of Federal funds. Of course, even if the
act did contain sanctions for violating an individual's freedom to
determine their own career path, those sanctions would have to rely on
the willingness of the very Federal bureaucracy which helped originate
many of the education reforms which diminish student freedom to enforce
this statutory provision.
Mr. Chairman, the Carl D. Perkins Act reauthorization may appear to
provide for greater State and individual control over vocational
education. However, H.R. 1853 is really another example of mandate
federalism, where States, localities, and individuals are given limited
autonomy in how they fulfill Federal mandates. As H.R. 1853 places
mandates on the States and individuals to perform certain functions in
the area of education, an area where Congress has no constitutional
authority. It is also in violation of the ninth and tenth amendments to
the U.S. Constitution.
Furthermore, H.R. 1853 forces Federal taxpayers to underwrite the
wages of students working part-time in the name of cooperative
education, another form of corporate welfare. Businesses who benefit
from the labor of students should not have the costs of that labor
subsidized by the taxpayers.
Certain language in H.R. 1853 suggests that parent's authority to
raise their children as they see fit may be undermined by the
Government in order to make parents partners in training their children
according to Government specifications.
Congress should, therefore, reject H.R. 1853 and instead eliminate
all Federal vocational education programs in order to restore authority
for those programs to the States, localities, and individual citizens.
Mr. ADAM SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my
strong support for the Carl D. Perkins Vocational-Technical Education
Act. The Perkins program provides much-needed vocational and technical
education to students around the country.
Federal investment in vocational-technical education is vital for
assuring a well-trained work force for the upcoming century. The
Perkins Act distributes vocational education funds to the local level
to ensure that our students are taught the necessary skills to be
productive citizens. Investing more in education and training our work
force to better compete is a sensible and farsighted way to spend our
Federal funds.
Just last month, I visited Chief Leschi School in Puyallup, WA. My
office helped them apply for their first Perkins grant. They won the
grant, and they will receive over $370,000 to put toward vocational and
technology programs. The grant money will fund computers and equipment
for the vocational department, such as the auto, wood, and print shops
and the photography lab. When I toured Chief Leschi, I saw how
important these grants could be. I met motivated administrators, high-
quality teachers and students who were eager to learn. It's critical to
provide them with the equipment and facilities they need to be
successful, and because of the Perkins Vocational-Technical Education
Act, Chief Leschi will soon have even stronger vocational and technical
programs.
Again, I urge my colleagues' support to reauthorize the Carl D.
Perkins Vocational-Technical Education Act. The Perkins grant has made
an important difference in the quality to our Nation's vocational and
technical education, and we should reauthorize the program to ensure it
is maintained for the students of tomorrow.
The CHAIRMAN. If there are no other amendments, the question is on
the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Quinn) 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,
pursuant to House Resolution 187, he reported the bill back to the
House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mrs. Mink of Hawaii
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
Mrs. Mink of Hawaii moves to recommit the bill (H.R. 1853)
to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, with
instructions to report the bill back to the House forthwith,
with the following amendments:
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)--
(i) 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
this 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.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I reserve all points of order against the
motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I take this extraordinary measure
in order to emphasize the importance of the amendment that was just
defeated.
My effort in offering the amendment was simply to hold harmless, to
continue a vital program that has been in existence for the past 13
years because Congress recognizes that unless we set aside 10 percent
of the funding in the vocational education program, that these
individuals, the displaced homemakers, the single parents, the pregnant
women, others in that category would simply not be provided for under
[[Page H5542]]
the traditional vocational education concepts.
{time} 1930
And, so, the Congress agreed and put forth a 10-percent set-aside for
these individuals. I understand that the new majority has a new way of
looking at funding these education programs. They prefer to allocate
the monies to the States, and through guidance called in the bill as
benchmarks, attempt to try to suggest that these programs ought to be
continued.
My amendment would say dismiss the 10-percent set-aside, we are at a
new point, all right, let us dismiss that, forget the targeting; but
let us not forget the program. And, so, all I do, under my amendment,
is to hold harmless the current programs that are in existence at the
current level of funding. That is all that we do. We do not ask for an
extra dollar to be allocated to this program, nor do we set aside any
particular mandates for new programs. And the reason why this is so
important, my colleagues of the House, is that just a year ago, just a
few months ago, in August of last year, we passed the welfare reform
bill; and in it we mandate that all of the women, single parents be
required to go to work as soon as 2 months after getting on welfare.
The justification for this requirement to work was that there would
be abundant funds and abundant programs in existence to help these
individuals get job training, get an education in order to get a decent
job. It was not intended that they should just get a job and earn
minimum wage, which we all know is insufficient to sustain a family.
So education is the key. Everyone who got up to speak for the welfare
reform bill made reference to education and training. This is our one
opportunity to link the two together, the welfare reform, go back to
work, get education, together with the job training programs that are
implicit in the vocational education concept.
So I ask my colleagues, especially those who voted for the Welfare
Reform Act, do not destroy a program that is in existence today that is
providing probably the only single effort that this Nation makes to
recognize the hardships of single parents. It is very difficult for
them. We cannot throw them to the masses.
Before this Congress earmarked 10 percent, let me tell my colleagues
that only 0.2 percent of the program money under vocational education
went to this target group. And, so, it is extremely important today
that we not cut this off. There will be, of course, turmoil in the
restructuring of the vocational education program as it is. We do not
disagree with the changes that are being made. But we say, at the same
time that the changes are made, do not create a turmoil in this program
that is so essential, not just for the particular women that are in it,
but in order to have a transition into the welfare reform program,
which is saying to all single mothers under welfare that they must work
and if they must work they need training, because in order to get a
good skilled job, in order to earn a decent living, they recognize that
they have to have further education. So I plead to this House to accept
my motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). Does the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] insist on his point of order?
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, no, I do not insist on my point of order.
I rise in opposition.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Goodling] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that everybody
understands that H.R. 1853 authorizes funding for vocational technical
education. It is not a welfare program. It is an education bill. And in
this bill, anytime we set aside money for something else, we are taking
that money from our local school, our secondary school, their
vocational program; we are taking it from the vocational technical
school in our area, the secondary vocational technical school.
Now this is a different time. My colleague is talking about ancient
history. Why is it different? It is different because we passed several
pieces of legislation that take care of special populations. We provide
over $2 billion in our Federal job training program that may be used to
serve displaced homemakers and other special populations. Most of these
programs are geared toward special populations. We have over $3 billion
in our welfare-to-work program, again geared to special populations. It
is a different time we are talking about. Do not mandate things to
local school districts. Let them determine what is in the best interest
of their local area.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs.
Roukema] to say what we do in this legislation already, to protect
special populations, over and over and over again. We protect them
without mandating anything.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and must say that I
know my colleagues are saying that it is not often that the gentlewoman
from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] stands up on something that is a woman's
issue and says a no vote.
But I have got to say that we have put every enforcement mechanism
here in this legislation. This is plain and simply a set-aside proposal
that the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] has advanced. It goes
contradictory to the whole reform effort that we had on a bipartisan
basis in the committee, the reform effort, which was to give authority
back to the local schools so that they can make their decision based on
the local population needs.
I want to assure my colleagues who are as concerned as I am about the
special needs of populations such as displaced homemakers, single
parents, and single pregnant women that the enforcement mechanisms are
here. They are very explicit throughout the legislation and put the
authority on both the Department of Education and Health and Human
Services to monitor and require compliance.
I do not have time to go through all of this, but page 29 and the
accountability standards of section 115 and section 201 amply protect
those special populations. I would simply urge that we not take 10
steps backward when we are trying to reform this most essential
program.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like to close
by merely saying do not take money from your local school districts, do
not take money from your area vocational technical school, do not take
money for your vocational programs in your secondary schools in your
district in order to feed a State bureaucracy and a Federal
bureaucracy. Let them make those decisions at the local level.
All the special populations are well protected in this legislation.
And as I indicated in other legislation that we passed this year, we
have emphasized those special populations, particularly displaced
homemakers, in programs where it should be done. This is an education
bill that we are dealing with today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of
rule XV, the Chair announces he may reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes
the period of time within which a vote by electronic device, if
ordered, will be taken on the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 207,
noes 220, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 288]
AYES--207
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
[[Page H5543]]
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOES--220
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrich
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--8
Frost
Gephardt
Kennedy (RI)
McDade
Mollohan
Parker
Schiff
Young (AK)
{time} 1957
Mr. CAMP changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The question is on the passage
of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members that this is a
5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 414,
nays 12, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 289]
YEAS--414
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moakley
Molinari
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Pascrell
Pastor
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
[[Page H5544]]
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (FL)
NAYS--12
Bonior
Campbell
Dickey
McDermott
Mink
Olver
Owens
Paul
Rohrabacher
Royce
Sensenbrenner
Stark
NOT VOTING--8
Frost
Gephardt
Kennedy (RI)
McDade
Mollohan
Parker
Schiff
Young (AK)
{time} 2006
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________