[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16118-16120]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 250, CARL D. 
     PERKINS CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2006

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 946 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 946

       Resolved,  That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider the conference report to 
     accompany the bill (S. 250) to amend the Carl D. Perkins 
     Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998 to improve the 
     Act. All points of order against the conference report and 
     against its consideration are waived. The conference report 
     shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kuhl of New York). 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.
  House Resolution 946 provides for the consideration of the conference 
report to accompany Senate 250, the Carl D. Perkins Career and 
Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006 and waives all points of 
order against its consideration.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. Speaker, I am actually proud to stand in support of this rule the 
underlying legislation, which reauthorizes important vocational 
education loans and programs. In our ever-changing economy, it is clear 
that education and training is more vital than ever before to both our 
Nation's economic growth and competitiveness, as well as the quality of 
life for individuals and their families.
  This conference agreement will, among other things, direct the States 
to assess the effectiveness of State programs for career and technical 
education, with an emphasis on math and science, and also establishes 
performance indicators for those programs.
  It will enhance coordination between secondary and post-secondary 
vocational programs and strengthen the role of the States in 
administering these programs, and this is a funding of a legislative 
priority.
  This legislation allows for increased flexibility for States who 
choose the option to combine the Perkins State Grant with the Tech-Prep 
programs into one program, leading to greater program efficiencies. 
This once again is a State option.
  It allows for the States to provide ``incentive grants'' to encourage 
and recognize exemplary performances in carrying out career and 
technical education programs.
  It also will ensure the continued access to teachers for professional 
development certification.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1917, the government first funded training for 
vocational programs relating to national defense. In 1963, we passed 
the first Vocational Education Act. It was modified in 1984 as the Carl 
Perkins Program, and again in 1990. So this program has been here in 
some way for 90 years in this Nation helping those vocational programs 
and training our citizens for their future.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  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. Speaker, today this House is considering the conference report 
for the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act. 
This is a good bill, a worthy bill. This bill addresses the needs of 
America's changing workforce and hopefully it will help close the gaps 
that threaten our long-term ability to compete in the global economy.
  I want to express my appreciation and my respect for the leadership 
and hard work invested over the past 15 months by House Education and 
Workforce Committee Chairman Buck McKeon and ranking member George 
Miller in moving these vital issues forward and that resulted in this 
strong, bipartisan supported bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report successfully improves several 
aspects of the programs authorized under the Perkins Act. It provides 
for more effective accountability for these programs. It establishes 
stronger links to businesses and stronger partnerships between high 
schools, colleges and businesses, including small businesses. It 
creates better links and sequences of courses from high school to 
college and it promotes a much stronger academic focus, consistent with 
other Federal K-12 educational programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a very strong supporter of vocational, career and 
technical education, and I am not alone in Central Massachusetts in 
believing in the importance of vocational and technical education.
  Let me share with my colleagues an important milestone that took 
place just last month in Worcester, Massachusetts. On June 8, the last 
class to occupy the old Worcester Vocational High School graduated, 
ending an era that began in 1910 when the Boys Trade School opened its 
doors to 29 ironworkers and 23 woodworkers.

[[Page 16119]]

  That evening, 204 graduating seniors who attended classes in that 
1910 building received their high school diplomas in subjects as 
diverse as telecommunications, cosmetology and hotel management. These 
students represent a well-educated workforce.
  In the past 5 years, in Worcester alone, the number of vocational 
technical graduates attending college has nearly tripled, from 24 
percent in 2001 to 68 percent this year. It is not surprising, 
therefore, to know that the scores of these students on the 
Massachusetts mandatory State test, which has formidable high 
standards, have risen significantly, a testament to the hard work of 
students, faculty, school administrators and parents.
  This coming September, a new era will begin for Worcester's 
vocational and technical students when they start classes in a new 
state-of-the-art school, the Worcester Technical High School. I have 
had the opportunity to tour this new school, the first vocational high 
school in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to be built in the last 30 
years. I can assure my colleagues that the goals and programs outlined 
in today's reauthorization bill will find fertile ground and flourish 
at Worcester Technical High School.
  But, Mr. Speaker, it takes more than just a good framework like the 
one provided by this conference report to ensure a quality education. 
It takes resources. It takes money. And, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, 
that worries me.
  I worry whether this House has the same bipartisan dedication and 
commitment that so successfully negotiated this conference agreement to 
make sure that these same programs are adequately funded in the future. 
Every year President Bush recommends the elimination of the Perkins 
vocational education programs in his budget. Every year, Mr. Speaker, 
every year he does this.
  Will the Republican leadership of this House pledge to organize a 
bipartisan effort and convince the President that he must include full 
funding for the Perkins Act in his budget?
  Each year when the President has eliminated the Perkins vocational 
and technical programs, the Republican majority of this House passes a 
budget resolution that matches the President's request, which means it 
also eliminates the funding for the Perkins Act programs.
  Where does that leave us, Mr. Speaker? It leaves us with an 
appropriations allocation for education that is so low it is impossible 
to adequately fund our Federal education programs. In order to restore 
$1.3 billion to the Perkins program, we are forced to steal money from 
other critical K-12 and higher education programs.
  This year is no exception. In the FY 2007 Labor-HHS-Education 
Appropriations Act, which has been waiting in the wings for 6 weeks 
since June 13 for a chance to come to the House floor, we once again 
see damaging cuts in education funding. For the second year in a row, 
funding for the Department of Education has been cut, this time $404 
million below FY 2006 levels and $1 billion below FY 2005 levels. While 
the appropriations bill provides $1.3 billion for vocational education 
programs, this is the same level as last year. This means vocational 
education grants will have lost $83 million in real purchasing power 
since FY 2005.
  Mr. Speaker, nearly half of all high school students and about one-
third of all college students take vocational education courses to be 
ready for today's world of work. We cannot keep freezing the funding 
for these programs. The result is a de facto cut in resources at 
exactly the time when this authorization increases standards and 
accountability for vocational and technical schools.
  So I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will 
finally commit themselves not just to authorizing these critical 
programs, but to working in a bipartisan, all-out effort to make sure 
that they are adequately funded. Otherwise, nothing we do here today 
matters.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have to admit I am a little bit confused. 
Only July 12, this House voted 260-159 in favor of a motion to instruct 
the conferees appointed to negotiate on this conference report to state 
clearly that when this authorizing bill describes as its purpose to 
prepare students for high wage jobs, that those jobs should, in no 
case, pay less than $7.25 an hour. 260-159, Mr. Speaker. That is an 
overwhelming vote. Sixty-four Republicans joined every single Democrat 
and Independent in this House in support of this language. But somehow, 
Mr. Speaker, it does not appear in the conference report.
  High skilled jobs are important, Mr. Speaker. High wage jobs matter. 
And so does raising the minimum wage. The minimum wage was established 
63 years ago to alleviate poverty. Today, the minimum wage condemns 
workers and their families to a life of poverty. That is more than 6.5 
million hardworking American workers. I thought that was why 260 
members of this House voted 2 weeks ago to demand that the conferees 
include in this bill that the phrase ``high wage'' means no less than 
$7.25 an hour.
  Did the House conferees not take the Members of this House seriously? 
Did they fight during negotiations to include these words in the final 
conference report? Because, if so, then why isn't it there?
  Mr. Speaker, I have worked in this House for a while now, 10 years as 
a Member of Congress and 13 years before that as a Congressional aid. I 
remember when motions to instruct conferees were taken seriously by 
Members appointed to the conference committee.
  The Republican leadership will not allow this House to act on the FY 
2007 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Act because it contains an 
increase in the minimum wage. Every Health, Education and Labor 
Department program is being held hostage to the Republican majority's 
determination to keep 6.5 million hardworking Americans in poverty.
  Now they will not allow a handful of words, supported so strongly by 
Members of this House, to be included in this conference report. What 
are they so afraid of?
  As we take up the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education 
Improvement Act conference report, we can all be proud of our support 
of vocational, technical and career education. But with all due 
respect, Mr. Speaker, what we do today is meaningless. It is worthless 
if we fail to ensure adequate appropriations for these programs and if 
we continue to let the minimum wage stagnate and willingly and 
deliberately condemn more and more American workers to lives of 
poverty.
  In closing, I will support this bill because it does authorize a 
number of good programs. But let me repeat so my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle can hear this loud and clear: It is not enough 
to authorize programs. We need to fund them. And this President has 
consistently tried to eliminate funding for important vocational 
educational programs and this Congress passes budgets that also 
eliminate funding for these programs. And, quite frankly, the funding 
that we do provide is inadequate.
  Finally, let me repeat to all Members of this House, that it is a 
disgrace that we are about to recess for our August vacation without 
increasing the Federal minimum wage. It has been stuck at $5.15 an hour 
for nearly 9 years. During that same period of time, Members of this 
House have increased their pay eight different times, totaling about 
$35,000.
  If this Republican leadership does not want to allow Members of this 
House a clean, straight, up-or-down vote on the minimum wage, then they 
should at least have the decency to bring to the floor a resolution to 
repeal this pay raise. It is wrong to increase our pay and, at the same 
time, refuse to do anything about the millions of American workers who 
are stuck in poverty. If you work in this country, you should get paid 
enough so you don't have to live in poverty.
  Again, vocational education is important, but we need to fund these 
programs. That is something that this Republican Congress has failed to 
do.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I wish to try and 
address my

[[Page 16120]]

remarks to the bill we have before us and hopefully keep them germane 
to the particular issue we have in front of us.
  We have a very good conference report. It is a conference report 
which is just what a conference report is, a negotiated compromise 
between both parties and both Houses of this Congress, which means, in 
essence, we have 535 different opinions and we have compromised down to 
one bill, which I think satisfies the base needs of all of us, or at 
least the vast majority of us who are in Congress right now.
  This is legislation that reflects legislative priorities as to 
funding for vocational education.

                              {time}  1045

  It provides more funds than perhaps the programs that have been 
assigned to us by the Constitution would do to this particular body. 
But it does reflect those priorities.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution because 
a ``yes'' vote moves us forward. A ``no'' vote on this resolution would 
harm kids. Mr. Speaker, I support the resolution and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________