[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 20591-20593]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                  CUSTOMIZED TRAINING FLEXIBILITY ACT

  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 4216) to amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to 
authorize reimbursement to employers for portable skills training, as 
amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4216

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Customized Training 
     Flexibility Act''.

     SEC. 2. FLEXIBILITY IN CUSTOMIZED TRAINING REQUIREMENT UNDER 
                   THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT OF 1998.

       Section 101(8) of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 
     U.S.C. 2801(8)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``(including a group 
     of employers)'' and inserting ``or a group of employers 
     within the same industry'';
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``the employer'' and 
     inserting ``any such employer''; and
       (3) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``for not less than 50 
     percent'' and inserting ``a portion''.

     SEC. 3. OTHER AMENDMENTS TO THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT OF 
                   1998.

       (a) Definition of Eligible Youth.--Section 101(13)(B) of 
     the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2801(13)(B)) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(B)(i) is a low-income individual; or
       ``(ii) has been determined to meet the eligibility 
     requirements for free meals under the Richard B. Russell 
     National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et. seq.) during 
     the most recent school year; and''.
       (b) Use of Funds for Adult and Dislocated Worker Employment 
     and Training Activities.--Section 134(d)(4) of the Workforce 
     Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2864(d)(4)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(H) Coordination with unemployment compensation.--An 
     eligible adult or dislocated worker participating in training 
     (except for on-the-job training) shall be deemed

[[Page 20592]]

     to be in training with the approval of the State agency in 
     the same manner as provided under section 314(f)(2) of the 
     Job Training Partnership Act (29 U.S.C. 1661c(f)(2)) (as such 
     section was in effect on the day before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act).''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).


                             General Leave

  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on H.R. 4216.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4216, to increase the 
flexibility of customized training programs available under the 
Workforce Investment Act.
  First, I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Radanovich) for his leadership in pushing this important legislation 
forward. The economy is in good shape nationally, but that prosperity 
has not been felt in all of our districts.
  For example, unemployment stands at 15 percent in the district of the 
gentleman from California (Mr.  Radanovich), and he is doing something 
with this legislation to help solve that problem for his constituents.
  Two years ago we were successful in enacting the law, the Workforce 
Investment Act. In addition to streamlining multiple Federal job 
training programs and empowering individuals to choose their own 
training, this act increased the role of employers to ensure that the 
training provided under these programs is relevant to job opportunities 
in their areas.
  The ability for local programs to provide customized training is just 
one example of how training can be guaranteed to meet the needs of 
local employers. This type of training has three basic characteristics:
  First, it is designed to meet the special requirements of an employer 
or group of employers.
  Second, it is provided with a commitment by the employer to hire the 
participant upon successful completion of training.
  Third, it provides employers with a reimbursement to offset a portion 
of the costs associated with the training.
  Under the Workforce Investment Act, we limited this reimbursement to 
just 50 percent. However, we have since learned that many employers are 
hesitant to participate in these programs because of this cap.
  This legislation before us today lifts this cap and allows local 
programs to negotiate a reasonable reimbursement for the training 
provided by employers. However, it maintains the requirement that at 
least a portion of the cost continue to be covered by the employer.
  The benefits of these programs are numerous. Not only do they provide 
employers with skilled workers, they also enhance the employability of 
the training participants, who come into these programs because they 
are unemployed or on welfare or underemployed.
  At a time when we are considering expanding the number of foreign 
workers into this Nation in order to fill high-paying high-skilled 
jobs, we must work to promote efforts such as customized training. By 
providing more local flexibility in carrying out such training, this 
legislation accomplishes that goal.
  In addition to changes made to customized training, this legislation 
makes two additional technical corrections to the Workforce Investment 
Act.
  The first allows youth seeking to participate in training programs to 
satisfy the low-income criteria by providing proof that they are 
eligible for free meals under the National School Lunch Act. This 
change relieves local programs of the burden of collecting additional 
income information from these youth.
  In addition, this legislation maintains a provision from the prior 
Job Training Partnership Act which inadvertently dropped during the 
consideration of the Workforce Investment Act. This provision simply 
ensures the continued coordination of job training provided under the 
Workforce Investment Act with the unemployment compensation system.
  Finally, I urge all Members to support the passage of this 
legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Radanovich), the author of the bill.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, 
and my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), for his 
assistance in bringing H.R. 4216 to the floor.
  Madam Speaker, I represent the 19th District of California. This 
region has an agricultural-based economy which brings with it high 
unemployment rates and an unskilled labor force.
  While the nationwide job market is the strongest it has been in 
decades, my district struggles with an unemployment rate that averages 
from between 12 to 17 percent. I know of small pockets in my district 
whose unemployment rates have recently been as high as 44 percent.
  To compound this problem, labor demands are difficult to meet since 
potential workers in our region have few if any labor skills. With such 
drastic conditions, we need our local businesses to have the incentive 
to train and hire people.
  There used to be programs in my district through which employers 
would train unskilled laborers and then hire them. This training comes 
at a cost that local work force development boards used to cover under 
the Job Training Partnership Act. However, the Workforce Investment Act 
now only allows a maximum reimbursement of 50 percent through what is 
known as the customized training program.
  Employers in my district cannot afford to train unskilled workers if 
they can only recover up to 50 percent of their costs. If we do not 
change this law, these valuable programs will cease to exist, both in 
my district and in areas throughout the country.
  H.R. 4216 changes the Workforce Investment Act so that it does not 
limit reimbursement of customized training to only 50 percent. My bill 
allows the local work force development board to determine the 
appropriate amount that an employer should contribute to customized 
training on a case-by-case basis.
  This change will salvage a form of job training that has been highly 
effective in adding to the labor force, ending government dependence, 
and strengthening our economy.
  Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 4216. It is 
good for business, it is good for the noticed, and it is good for the 
economy.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Radanovich) for his attention to this issue. 
Members of Congress very often self-limit themselves according to what 
committees they serve on. The gentleman from California (Mr. 
Radanovich) is not a member of our committee, but he took an interest 
in this issue and is addressing a series of problems that I think need 
to be addressed, and we thank him for that.
  We thank the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) for his interest 
in bringing the legislation to this point, and we obviously thank the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) and the ranking member, 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) on our side.
  We are concerned about dealing with the problems of a couple of 
people that would be relevant to this legislation. Then, frankly, we 
have some concerns about what is in the legislation. I want to note 
each of those three points for the Record.
  First of all, we commend the fact that this legislation will help the

[[Page 20593]]

young person who is in school, who wants to get job training while he 
or she is in school so they can take the first step up that career 
ladder.

                              {time}  1645

  Right now the process of qualifying for that job training requires 
that the individual prove his or her income. That can be a burdensome, 
time-consuming, bureaucratic process.
  What this bill says is that, if the young person in question is 
eligible for a free school lunch, they should automatically be eligible 
for the job training. That makes sense, because it says that, once one 
filled out one set of forms with one's income tax return or one's 
parents' income tax return, and once one has gone through one 
bureaucratic thicket to qualify for a school lunch, since the criteria 
are substantially identical to qualify for the job training, one ought 
to be able to do it anyway. That makes perfect sense. The Department of 
Labor supports that, and so do we. We are glad that it is in the 
legislation.
  The second issue is to understand the person who has been caught in 
the switches of this changing economy. It is indisputably true that, if 
one is a network analyst or a software engineer, these are great times 
to be coming out in the job market. People are getting signing bonuses 
and getting recruited by firms, and they are doing very, very well.
  It is not such a great time if one is working at a steel mill or 
manufacturing plant or a coal mine or in other manufacturing segments 
of our economy. In many areas of the country, in many industries, those 
industries have been shrinking. Many people find themselves in the 
middle of their lives, in the middle of their careers, in the middle of 
their mortgages, in the middle of raising their children without a 
secure source of income, without a job.
  These are people who most need the skills to make the jump from the 
old economy to the new one, who most need the skills to upgrade 
themselves within the old economy so they can be part of that shrunken 
workforce at a higher level of productivity and higher wages.
  Very often that person's plan is to be on unemployment benefits for a 
while and then go to school at the same time, go to some kind of job 
training program at the same time, stretch their bills during the 
period of time they are on unemployment, get their training, and then 
get a new job that pays higher with health benefits, and get their 
family back on their feet. That is the way people do it.
  An anomaly in the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 has made it 
difficult for people to do that because there is a question that gets 
raised as to whether or not that person can still receive his or her 
unemployment benefits while they are getting their job training. We 
think the answer ought to be yes; that if someone has a little bit of a 
supplemental income from their unemployment compensation and they are 
going to school and working very hard to upgrade their skills so they 
can move back into the workforce at a higher wage, that is what they 
are supposed to be doing. Those are the rules of the game.
  It is very important that what this bill does is to clarify that that 
answer should, in most cases, be yes; that, in most cases, the 
participation of a worker in a Workforce Investment Act training 
program does not automatically disqualify him or her from receiving 
unemployment benefits from the State. There may be other factors that 
do, but the mere participation in this program does not disqualify 
someone for unemployment benefits.
  What this really does is provide a lifeline of relief to someone at a 
very difficult time in his or her life and career. It is a very good 
idea. The Department of Labor supports it. We are glad it is in the 
bill, and we support it as well.
  Let me raise one area of concern that we do carry forward as this 
bill is negotiated between the two Chambers and as it reaches the 
executive branch, and that is the question of the employer's 
responsibility to match or contribute to funds for job training that 
are provided by the Federal Government.
  We certainly understand that there should be flexibility for 
employers, that employers that are modest in size and have very little 
cash in the bank ought not to be excluded from custom training because 
of that situation. Very often those are the employers that are 
producing most of the new jobs in the economy.
  It is important to us, however, that we spread these job training 
dollars to as many people as possible. In other words, we believe that, 
if there is a choice between using 100 percent of the money to train 
three people or 100 percent of the money to train one person, we should 
always err on the side of training three people rather than one.
  We do have some concerns about the way the bill is drafted at this 
point that we believe might permit an undue concentration of job 
training funds on one person and not require the level of employer 
contribution that ought to be contributed. The AFL/CIO, for example, 
has expressed this concern, and I would echo it, and I would urge the 
majority to work with us and with the Department of Labor and those in 
the other body who are interested to try to reconcile this difference 
as we go forward. But we shall, indeed, go forward.
  I would commend both of my gentlemen from California, Mr. McKeon and 
Mr. Radanovich. I guess the author of this bill is proving that we are 
putting new wine in new bottles, given his background as a vintner. I 
must say I speak as the brother-in-law of a fellow vintner, so I 
immediately appreciated the work of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Radanovich). I salute the efforts of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McKeon).
  So having duly noted the concerns of the overconcentration of 
resources on a few people, I would commend the positive aspects of this 
bill. I thank the Department of Labor for its input.
  Madam Speaker, since I have no further speakers, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. McHUGH. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Morella). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4216, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  The title of the bill was amended so as to read:

       ``A bill to amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to 
     expand the flexibility of customized training, and for other 
     purposes.''.

  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________