[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.

                          ____________________