[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 57 (Wednesday, May 4, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H2891-H2896]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 366, VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL 
                      EDUCATION FOR THE FUTURE ACT

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 254 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 254

       Resolved,  That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 366) to amend the Carl D. Perkins Vocational 
     and Technical Education Act of 1998 to strengthen and improve 
     programs under that Act. The first reading of the bill shall 
     be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration 
     of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to 
     the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
     now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. 
     Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may 
     be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a 
     separate vote in the House or any amendment adopted in the 
     Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Issa). The gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Bishop) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 254 provides for the consideration of 
H.R. 366, the Vocational and Technical Education for the Future Act, 
under a structured rule. The rule waives all points of order against 
consideration of the bill, and provides for 1 hour of general debate 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  The rule makes in order the amendments printed in the Rules report 
and provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House today in support 
of this rule, and for the underlying legislation, H.R. 366, the 
Vocational and Technical Education for the Future Act.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Chairman and the gentleman 
from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the subcommittee chairman, the original 
sponsors of the bill and many other committee members on both sides of 
the aisle, have put forward a bipartisan reauthorization of the Perkins 
Vocational Education Funding Programs, which have helped and will 
continue to help our Nation's young people, as well as older workers, 
attain the real-world technical skills that are vital in today's highly 
competitive world marketplace.
  I make special note that this legislation was reported out of the 
full Committee on Education and the Workforce unanimously on a voice 
vote, and with no surviving opposition. This legislation reauthorizes 
the Carl Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act through fiscal 
year 2011, and it would authorize $1.3 billion for grants to the States 
in fiscal year 2006, and ensure that all States are held harmless, and 
receive at least at a minimum the amount of vocational education 
funding as was in fiscal year 2005.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a program that has been funded in one way or 
another from Congress since 1917. In talking to some educators from 
Utah who happen to be with me today, and I was meeting with today, to 
find out how this works in the real world, this particular program in 
one district in Utah, provides for a student center coordinator and a 
workforce coordinator within the district, a separate student counselor 
within the alternate learning program, and English as Second Language 
language assistance to help those trying to gain these skills to 
improve their ability to communicate within the language.
  All of these programs come from this money. All of these programs 
could have been there without this money, but it would mean that other 
programs essential in the education community would have to be cut to 
compensate for that.
  This bill goes beyond reauthorization and incorporates several 
changes to the past Perkins programs. Among those improvements is the 
combining and streamlining of two existing funding streams, the 
traditional State grant funding with a tech prep funding, and 
encouraging the States to apply the higher educational goals of the 
tech prep program in mathematics and science to all of the recipients.
  At the same time, it would also give States and local recipients 
critical flexibility in customizing their implementation plans for 
incorporating tech prep education goals based on local needs and local 
concerns.
  Mr. Speaker, this approach taken by this legislation increases local 
accountability for the use of these funds, and, according to the 
Congressional Budget Office review of H.R. 366, as published in the 
committee report, the bill does not contain any unfunded Federal 
mandates on State and local governments.
  The bill does recognize that State and local communities shall have 
the final say as to what is taught in local schools and explicitly 
rejects the one-size-fits-all Federal standard for curriculum or 
academic content.
  And, finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill reduces the amount of funding 
that can be consumed in administrative overhead from 5 percent to 2 
percent, and instead pushes these extra cost savings out to the local 
recipients, actually resulting in more funding available on the local 
level for more student and better student programs.

[[Page H2892]]

  This rule makes some very important amendments in order. The rule is 
fair. The rule allows this legislation to move forward.
  And with that, Mr. Speaker, I would urge adoption of the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 366, the Vocational and Technical 
Education For the Future Act, is a good news/bad news piece of 
legislation. The good news is that this is a bipartisan bill. And the 
Republican majority in the Education and the Workforce Committee 
supports these important vocational programs, and were determined to 
bring this reauthorization bill to the House floor.
  The bad news is that these same Republican leaders voted just last 
week for a budget resolution that eliminates all funding for these 
programs in fiscal year 2006. The good news, which we will no doubt 
hear from some of our Republican colleagues today, is that they are 
determined to restore some of the funding for the Perkins Vocational 
Education Programs when the House starts moving forward individual 
appropriations bills, and that there is room to fund these programs 
under the budget education numbers.
  The bad news is that the education funding in the budget resolution 
is so limited that it already requires deep cuts and even elimination 
of many other critical education programs. So to restore the $1.3 
billion for vocational, career and technical education and training 
programs that the Republicans just voted to eliminate from the Federal 
budget, will require cutting even deeper an additional $1.3 billion 
from all the other education programs.
  Moving on, Mr. Speaker, the good news is that H.R. 366 increases 
State and local accountability for these programs and they are funded. 
The bill requires each local recipient to establish levels of 
performance for high school and post secondary students in core skills 
and knowledge. This is an important new responsibility for local 
educators, and for the States that must negotiate and monitor these 
accountability measures.
  The bad news is that this bill does not authorize, let alone provide, 
additional funding or resources to ensure that local schools and States 
can successfully carry out these new responsibilities and requirements.
  We have all seen this before, Mr. Speaker. We have seen this in the 
No Child Left Behind Act where the law mandates new responsibilities, 
new accountability measures, and new administrative tasks, but fails to 
provide the necessary resources to ensure their success.
  At least in No Child Left Behind, Congress authorized the funding to 
support these new mandates, even though the President and the 
Republican Congress failed to provide the funding to carry them out 
successfully.
  H.R. 366, does not even pretend to authorize additional resources. It 
just requires this additional workload happen. In fact, H.R. 366 
actually reduces the setaside for State administrative funds while 
State responsibilities are being increased. Mr. Speaker, we used to 
call these unfunded mandates by the Federal Government, but I guess 
times have changed.
  Finally, this bill consolidates into one block of funding both the 
Perkins State grant program for vocational education, and the tech prep 
program that prepares students and current worker for highly skilled 
technical occupations.
  The good news is that this is an effort to save the tech prep 
program. The bad news is that history has shown us that when programs 
are rolled together into one block grant, they inevitably end up 
receiving less funding over time than they would have if they remained 
separated programs.
  While this authorization requires the consolidated grant programs to 
ensure that fiscal year 2006 tech prep presumes received the same level 
of funding as in fiscal year 2005, it authorizes no such assurances for 
fiscal years 2007 through 2011.
  But what does it matter, Mr. Speaker? There is no money for these 
programs in the 2006 budget resolution. So why quibble over the details 
of the authorization, when it is all window dressing anyway?
  Mr. Speaker, Federal support for career and technical education is a 
critical means of ensuring that our students and our future workforce 
are well trained for the jobs of the present and the future. The career 
and technical education programs funded under the Carl D. Perkins 
Vocational and Education Act, and reauthorized by H.R. 366, provide the 
training and the skills for high school and community college students 
to prepare for their post secondary education and employment and ensure 
their future financial success.

                              {time}  1115

  It is shameful, then, that President Bush and the Republican-
controlled Congress have undermined these critical programs by 
presenting budgets and approving budget resolutions that eliminate 
their funding.
  America has lost over 1.7 million private sector jobs since the start 
of the Bush administration, and hundreds of thousands of American jobs 
have been outsourced to other countries. The Republican response has 
been to short-change our students and workers instead of investing in 
them.
  Businesses and rapidly growing industries face the prospect that many 
high-skilled, high-wage jobs will go unfilled or be outsourced because 
they cannot find enough qualified American workers. At the same time, 
millions of young adults ages 16 to 24 lack the skills needed to secure 
jobs that pay more than poverty-level wages.
  Rather than invest more funds in career and technical education and 
training in our high schools and community colleges, President Bush and 
the Republican Congress have chosen to terminate the entire $1.3 
billion Federal investment in these programs. Nearly half of all high 
school students and one-third of college students who take vocational 
courses will be denied funding, leaving many schools and communities 
unable to prepare these students to successfully enter the workforce.
  Mr. Speaker, in Worcester, Massachusetts, the city has invested in 
constructing a modern vocational high school to serve over 1,000 
students, recognizing the importance of training these students to 
enter the manufacturing and high-tech companies of central 
Massachusetts. Currently, several students at Worcester Vocational High 
School have received Skills USA Awards to the Vocational Industrial 
Clubs of America; and one student, Christopher Bradley, placed third in 
national competitions.
  Just recently, three other vocational students, Amanda Niquette, 
Alicia Sheperd and Amy Trujillo, received an award for their work in 
raising community awareness about hunger. They created public service 
ads on hunger, appeared on local talk shows, and organized a breakfast 
that raised over $3,000 for the Worcester Food Bank.
  Mr. Speaker, these students and tens of thousands of students just 
like them across our Nation deserve the support of this Congress. But 
the Republican majority is turning its back on these young men and 
women and their hopes to contribute to our communities and our national 
economy.
  While it is important to reauthorize these programs, it is just as 
important to make sure that they are fully funded.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority cannot declare with a straight 
face that it supports these programs by passing H.R. 366 this week, 
when just last week in a rush to the House floor it approved a budget 
based on eliminating all funding for these programs.
  I recognize that authorizations and appropriations are different 
bills; but they are all part of the same process, namely, the budget 
process. In fact, the budget resolution is like the mother of all 
authorization and appropriations bills. Mr. Speaker, despite what I 
expect to be widespread support for this bill, and I will vote for this 
bill, I do not want my colleagues on the other side to mislead the 
American public by claiming that this is a good and fair rule.
  Yes, two of the three amendments made in order are Democratic 
amendments, but the Republican leadership denied five other amendments 
from being offered on the floor today. My

[[Page H2893]]

friends on the other side of the aisle will say it is a good thing that 
two-thirds of the amendments made in order are Democratic amendments. 
Let me respond right now. Denying five of eight amendments, a total of 
two-thirds of the total amendments offered before the Committee on 
Rules, is undemocratic and it is one more example of Republican 
leadership trying to stifle debate in this country on very important 
issues.
  Of those amendments not made in order today, Mr. Speaker, the one 
that is most troublesome is the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member on the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce.
  The Miller amendment is simple. It prohibits the Department of 
Education from using Federal funds to pay journalists or media 
commentators to engage in publicity or propaganda. It also would have 
required prepackaged news segments paid with Federal funds to disclose 
such funding in the segment. This is a simple and straightforward 
amendment. Republicans and Democrats in this body and the Senate have 
publicly condemned the way President Bush paid Armstrong Williams and 
other journalists to publicly support partisan and controversial 
administration policies.
  This amendment does not blame anyone. It just says that no 
administration now and in the future can use journalists to act as paid 
ambassadors for administration policy. Why would the Republican 
leadership deny this amendment? Why should this administration's 
actions be condemned but not prohibited?
  My Republican friends, I am sure, will not answer these questions; 
but let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this is just one more case of 
the Republican leadership's actions not matching their rhetoric.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). If I could go through the speech itself 
and divide it into two halves of it, the points that the gentleman made 
under ``bad news'' basically are not germane to this particular bill 
and are issues that will be addressed in other positions that will be 
coming through at another time and another place. I am sure when we do 
address those particular issues on relevant pieces of legislation, the 
comments that the record number of Federal money that has gone into 
education over the last 5 years will be clearly made and clearly 
understood.
  However, I also do appreciate his good points that he said because 
each of those good points did, indeed, deal with this particular bill, 
this particular program and they were laudatory; and I am assuming that 
that means that this particular bill has some positive aspects that are 
within the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. McGovern) purview.
  I appreciate the gentleman bringing up what I think is one of the 
strengths of this particular bill which deals with the administrative 
costs and realizing fully that when we are talking about education 
there are two funds that will drive education. One is program costs. 
The other is the maintenance and operation costs. Within a traditional 
education program, once the maintenance and operation is there, that 
becomes a standard cost and standard form and everything else is driven 
by the program aspect which is almost always salaries. To tie 
administrative costs to that as a clear percentage makes a lot of 
sense.
  In this particular area when you are dealing with a system that has 
both programs as well as the operational costs that are separate, but 
while the program costs may be constant, the operational costs, 
therefore, come in uniquely motivated fashion, which is high front end. 
To try to put a percentage on that and drive that automatically skews 
the entire area that deals with administration. That is why it is one 
of the bright parts of this particular bill, to try and scale back that 
so that more money can go into the programs and directly help kids and 
people trying to get jobs, as opposed to just simply the 
administration.
  And I agree once again with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern) that at least without this bill, nothing goes forward as 
providing vocational, technical, agricultural training. And there are 
high-paying jobs out there begging for this kind of technical training 
that we need. I have seen them. I have seen the programs that do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, before I introduce our next speaker, let me respond to 
the gentleman. When he mentioned the fact, I think he used the word 
that some of these amendments were not germane to the bill, it is my 
understanding that all eight Democratic amendments were cleared by the 
Parliamentarian of this House as being germane. And if we had an open 
rule, every single one of them would have been germane to this bill and 
could have been offered. So, again, it is puzzling to me why some of 
these amendments were denied.
  I would also say to the gentleman, the point I was trying to make is 
that while there is a lot in this reauthorization bill that is good in 
terms of reauthorizing programs, it seems inconsistent with the budget 
resolution that the Republican leadership passed just last week that 
eliminates a significant amount of funding from the education budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I have concerns about this bill which I 
hoped would be addressed in the full House today and during conference 
with the Senate, because this bill is the result of a bipartisan 
process in our subcommittee and the committee as a whole.
  I believe, however, that to continue that bipartisan process, the 
full House should have been able to consider this bill under an open 
rule. At the very minimum, I think the rule should have included all 
eight of the Democratic amendments that came before the Committee on 
Rules last evening.
  The Miller amendment, the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) is our full committee ranking member, was submitted as an 
important amendment that is designated to halt the abuses that we saw 
in the Armstrong Williams contract with the Department of Education. It 
simply says you cannot hire journalists and media commentators to do 
agency propaganda. And it requires that any prepackaged news pieces 
prepared with Department of Education funds fully disclose that fact in 
their piece. His amendment was not allowed.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Owens) submitted amendments to address drop-out rates and 
school construction, respectively. They were not allowed.
  The Holt amendment to improve the skills of manufacturing workers was 
not allowed.
  These are very important amendments, and once again the rule we are 
going to vote on today did not include them.
  The amendment that I submitted would have authorized grants to school 
districts to help them increase girls' interest in studying for careers 
in science, math, engineering, and technology.
  Mr. Speaker, girls and women continue to be underrepresented in these 
fields both in high school where my amendment is targeted and in 
college.
  A recent GAO study found that men still outnumber women in nearly 
every field in the sciences. Women make up only 37 percent of 
scientists, 33 percent of mathematicians, and 14 percent of engineers. 
More important, this underrepresentation is tied to barriers that 
female students continue to face in school.
  For example, in 2002 in testimony before the Senate Committee on 
Commerce, the National Women's Law Center cited a study that found that 
70 percent of male teachers thought that boys were more interested in 
computers than girls. Not that they are more interested in computers 
than they are interested in girls. More interested in computers than 
girls are interested in computers.
  That may be one reason why from 1984 to 2000 the percentage of women

[[Page H2894]]

awarded bachelor's degrees in computer science dropped from 37 percent 
to 28 percent. Another study showed that ineffective high school career 
counseling reduced women's entry into university science and 
engineering programs. My amendment would directly address that issue.
  A 2001 investigation showed that none of New York City's vocational 
high schools that were predominantly female offered advanced placement 
courses in calculus, statistics, or computer science. And instead of 
focusing on high-tech careers, these schools tended to focus on careers 
like cosmetology and clerical support, not careers that pay a 
competitive wage with the technology careers.
  My amendment would specifically address situations like that as well.
  If we as a country do not address this issue, we will participate in 
the global 21st century economy with literally one hand tied behind our 
backs. It will be impossible for our country to have a highly qualified 
workforce as long as more than half of our population is steered away, 
intentionally or not, from studying and working in some of the most 
critical fields. This will have implications not only for our economic 
security as a Nation but for our national security as well because both 
depend on scientific innovation.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in this rule and I would ask my 
colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal).
  Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support not only of the bill but 
also this rule.
  I can think of almost no issue more important than economic 
development and quality of life in my home State of Louisiana.
  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has said 75 percent of employers 
reported extreme difficulty when trying to hire qualified workers. 
Forty percent of employers say that applicants are often poorly 
skilled. Thirty percent say applicants have the wrong skills for the 
available jobs. The numbers are even worse in Louisiana.
  I was privileged to serve as the president of the University of 
Louisiana system, a system comprised of eight 4-year universities and 
at one time some community colleges as well. In our State we see a 
disproportionately high number of students trying to continue their 
studies after high school in a 4-year college setting.
  Now the result of that is, whereas a majority of high school 
graduates that continue their education in Louisiana start in a 4-year 
setting, that is not the norm across the rest of the South or the 
country. Across the South, 50 percent of most students that continue 
their education, 50 percent of those students continue in a 4-year 
setting. In California the numbers are exactly reversed. The majority 
continue their education in a community or technical college setting.

                              {time}  1130

  Because of Louisiana's unique numbers, one of the results is we have 
got a much lower graduation and retention rate than our colleague 
States. We do not do students any favors. We do not serve students well 
by putting them in a 4-year college setting where they may not be ready 
or interested in that particular program.
  Indeed, at the same time, we have more students dropping out, many 
times with large amounts of college debt. We also have manufacturing 
and other employers with jobs that cannot be filled in Louisiana right 
now.
  We have got a huge demand for welders in our shipyards. We have a 
huge demand for P-tech operators in our petrochemical plants. Indeed, 
we have got a generation of workers who are about to reach retirement 
age. We are going to need to have thousands of skilled workers. We are 
talking about good jobs, with good pay and good benefits, and this is 
the only State in the South that is losing population from people 
moving out faster than they are moving in, the only State in the South 
to consistently have more people leave faster than they are moving in, 
for one reason and one reason only, because of a lack of economic 
opportunity.
  So I stand in support not only of the rule, but of this bill. It is a 
good investment, not only in our community and technical college 
system. It is a good investment in our children and in our economy and 
in our future. This bill is good for Louisiana. It is good for our 
Nation's economy. Most importantly, it is good for those students.
  As I look at the things that we might do as a Congress, that will 
help to move my State forward, I can think of cutting taxes, reforming 
our legal system. I can think of some of the other regulatory relief 
measures we can pass, but other than that there is nothing more 
important than investing in workforce training. There is nothing more 
important than making sure that Louisiana students are ready for the 
jobs that are waiting for them.
  I rise in strong support of the rule. I rise in strong support of the 
bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I once again yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to note the passing of Cindy 
Marano.
  Ms. Marano was a founder of the National Displaced Homemakers 
Network, now known as Women Work! For 12 years, Cindy was executive 
director of Wider Opportunities for Women, which we call WOW.
  Her work to improve opportunities for women, including displaced 
homemakers, who are specifically helped by this bill, was invaluable, 
and we will miss her. We will miss her vision and we will miss her 
leadership greatly.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule 
and H.R. 366, the Vocational and Technical Education for the Future Act 
of 2005.
  This bill, introduced by the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), my 
colleague, authorizes the Carl D. Perkins Act through fiscal year 2011.
  H.R. 366 highlights student achievement, increases accountability, 
and strengthens cooperation between secondary and post-secondary 
vocational and technical education programs.
  This bill responds to the needs of employers and future employees by 
emphasizing both academic and technical education in curriculum 
planning. It helps schools identify those students who wish to pursue 
specialized technical training and assists those schools in setting up 
a course of study that will best help those students receive that 
training.
  Since its inception, the Perkins Act has provided many students in my 
district with the ability to continue to enhance their skills and their 
education.
  Perkins equips students with the ability to proceed with post-
secondary education or pursue other post-secondary opportunities.
  I believe it is essential for our economy to strengthen the Perkins 
program.
  Through Perkins, one of the largest technical schools in my district 
and in Pennsylvania, the Lehigh Career and Technical Institute, was 
able to upgrade its equipment. This new, high-tech equipment allows 
students to improve their skills and, hence, makes them more marketable 
in a work environment that stresses technology and innovation.
  H.R. 366 would also allow local facilities to offer information on 
supportive services so students can address their transportation and 
child care needs while in school.
  Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, which is also located 
in the 15th Congressional District, has many students pursuing 
engineering and other degrees in the hard sciences who would not be 
able to graduate on time absent Perkins assistance. Without the money 
these programs provide, these students would have to secure full-time 
employment while completing their degrees. This leads to more student 
debt, more time in school, and ultimately, more taxpayer expenditure.
  As the workforce continues to expand, we must continue to provide 
resources for Perkins, not cut or zero out this important program.
  The Perkins program is extremely important, not just for the numbers 
of students it serves, but for the communities that benefit from the 
better prepared workforce that results from these programs.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation and support 
the rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), someone who

[[Page H2895]]

has a unique insight into the needs of education.
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time, and I 
rise to support the reauthorization of the Vocational and Technical 
Education for the Future Act and the underlying rule.
  One of our Nation's greatest needs at the present time is a well-
trained, competent workforce with specific skills. As most people in 
our country realize, at the present time, our educational system is not 
producing enough of these people to meet our needs, and therefore, we 
are bringing in people from overseas to fill highly skilled jobs, and 
Perkins is one solution to this dilemma.
  Currently, the Perkins program trains 10 million Americans for 
specialized jobs requiring specific skills.
  As has been stated previously, this reauthorization provides greater 
flexibility and more control at the local level. So each local entity 
that controls the educational endeavor at that point can decide how to 
best structure the Perkins program. It increases academic rigor, 
improves accountability and provides for a better transition from high 
school to post-secondary schools.
  One thing that I would like to point out at this time is that in 
rural areas our greatest challenge is the loss of young people. We are 
depopulating our rural areas, and one reason for this is that farms are 
getting bigger and it is crowding people off the land. So one allowable 
use of the Perkins grant is to provide entrepreneurial training, and we 
find that in rural areas that the young person can be taught how to 
write a business plan, how to access capital, how to write a grant, how 
to market, how to create a Web site. This is the best alternative we 
have, the best way we have to keep young people employed in rural 
areas.
  In some areas, we are losing 75 percent, 80 percent of our graduates. 
It costs $85,000 to educate them K through 12, and they are taking off. 
So we think that these Perkins grants can be used in this way and in a 
very effective way.
  So I think vocational and technical education may be the most 
important, yet least appreciated, segments of our educational system. I 
certainly support the bill and the rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman have any more speakers 
on his side?
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I have two more speakers.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Issa). The gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Bishop) has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) who spends much time working in this particular 
area, is very knowledgeable, and has a great deal of respect for the 
education system in all the States, including my own, the chairman.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Utah for his kind 
words, and Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule which will allow 
for debate on an important piece of legislation, the Vocational and 
Technical Education for the Future Act.
  The Vocational and Technical Education for the Future Act is a 
bipartisan bill that helps States and local communities improve 
educational opportunities for their students. This bill was crafted in 
cooperation with Members on both sides of the aisle, and with the 
support of numerous vocational and technical education leaders.
  I am going to applaud the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for 
producing this bill in a bipartisan manner and with the support of 
educators around the country. This bill fulfills our principles for 
reform by focusing on academic achievement for students and by 
preserving local control for States and communities.
  H.R. 366 will improve vocational and technical education by focusing 
on academics without expanding the Federal role in education.
  We streamline bureaucracy and give more money to local communities. 
We also streamline funding by consolidating the Tech-Prep program with 
the basic State grant.
  Like other important education reform efforts, including No Child 
Left Behind and the Individuals With Disabilities and Education Act, 
the bill ensures equitable treatment for private school students. We 
ensure students and families are not denied access to programs because 
they choose to attend a private school.
  Above all else, the bill recognizes the importance of maintaining 
local control. We are continuing to move away from the so-called 
``School to Work'' model of the past, and we are maintaining our 
commitment to ensuring States and local communities have the final say 
when it comes to educational choices for their students.
  The bill was approved by the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
by a voice vote. I look forward to similar bipartisan support for this 
legislation today.
  Vocational and technical education is a vital component of our 
Nation's educational system. State and local communities use Perkins 
funding to help prepare youth and adults for the future.
  Each year, millions of students enrich their secondary and post-
secondary educational opportunities through participation in vocational 
and technical education. In fact, nearly all students, 96 percent, 
leave public high school having taken some vocational education 
courses. Further, nearly half of all high school students and about 
one-third of college students are involved in vocational programs as a 
major part of their studies. Perhaps as many as 40 million adults, one 
in four, engage in short-term, post-secondary occupational training.
  The bill before us will build on the framework of the Perkins program 
by protecting the role of States and local communities, and asking for 
results in exchange for the money that we are already spending at the 
Federal level.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the rule. I support the underlying bill. I 
believe that H.R. 366 will help States and local communities to 
strengthen opportunities for their students and improve vocational and 
technical education programs. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' 
on the rule and ``yes'' on passage of this important piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to close by again expressing my disappointment that this is 
not an open rule, and that if they did not want to give an open rule, 
they should have made at least all eight amendments in order.
  Five Democratic amendments were not made in order under this rule, 
notwithstanding the fact that, according to the parliamentarian, they 
were germane. These amendments were thoughtful. They certainly would 
not have disrupted the debate on this bill. They could have been dealt 
with in a short period of time, but I think my friends on the majority 
side are so addicted to denying amendments and stifling debate and 
closing rules that it is hard for them to break the habit.
  So I express my regret and I hope that in the future, that they will 
be more forthcoming with allowing Members to have their say on the 
floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I appreciate this opportunity because the reauthorization of the 
Perkins vocational funding is a fundamental part of the educational 
funding of this Nation, as well as American competitiveness.
  This bill will help provide both the public and private sector of our 
economy with an educated, capable, highly trained skilled workforce, 
which is essential for our economy to grow and be competitive in our 
environment.
  This is a good, well-balanced and bipartisan, I emphasize that word 
``bipartisan'' bill that deserves its vote on final passage.
  I am appreciative that the words that were said here today, talking 
specifically about this particular bill, have all been positive. We may 
have differences on other educational concepts and issues at other 
times, that will be the point at other times and other places, but for 
this particular bill it moves us forward.
  With that, I urge the adoption of the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.

[[Page H2896]]

  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________