[House Report 104-875]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Union Calendar No. 478
104th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 104-875
_______________________________________________________________________
REPORT OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND EDUCATIONAL
OPPORTUNITIES DURING THE 104TH CONGRESS
_______
January 2, 1997.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES
One Hundred Fourth Congress
------
WILLIAM (BILL) GOODLING,
Pennsylvania, Chairman
WILLIAM L. CLAY, Missouri THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
GEORGE MILLER, California MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan STEVE GUNDERSON, Wisconsin
PAT WILLIAMS, Montana HARRIS W. FAWELL, Illinois
MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina
MAJOR R. OWENS, New York BILL BARRETT, Nebraska
THOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM,
California
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan
PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON,
California
ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware
JACK REED, Rhode Island JAN MEYERS, Kansas
TIM ROEMER, Indiana SAM JOHNSON, Texas
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York \3\ JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri
XAVIER BECERRA, California JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia Y. TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
GENE GREEN, Texas JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California FRANK RIGGS, California
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
Rico DAVE WELDON, Florida
MEL REYNOLDS, Illinois \1\ DAVID FUNDERBURK, North Carolina
CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania \2\ MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon \4\ DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana
CHARLES NORWOOD, Georgia
----------
\1\ Resigned October 1, 1995.
\2\ Appointed October 11, 1995.
\3\ Resigned April 22, 1996.
\4\ Appointed June 5, 1996.
STANDING SUBCOMMITTEES
------
Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations
HARRIS W. FAWELL, Illinois,
Chairman
MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey
PAT WILLIAMS, Montana \4\ JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri
MAJOR R. OWENS, New York JAN MEYERS, Kansas
THOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey DAVE WELDON, Florida
MEL REYNOLDS, Illinois \1\ LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania \5\
------
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina,
Chairman
MAJOR R. OWENS, New York Y. TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
GEORGE MILLER, California LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
MATTHEW MARTINEZ, California \4\ DAVID FUNDERBURK, North Carolina
PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia
ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey HARRIS W. FAWELL, Illinois
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York \3\ BILL BARRETT, Nebraska
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan
CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto Rico JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania
------
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families
RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM,
California, Chairman
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania
GEORGE MILLER, California STEVE GUNDERSON, Wisconsin
PAT WILLIAMS, Montana \5\ MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey SAM JOHNSON, Texas
PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York \3\ FRANK RIGGS, California
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia DAVE WELDON, Florida
CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto Rico MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania \4\ DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon \4\
------
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan, Chairman
THOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio BILL BARRETT, Nebraska
MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California \5\ CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina
JACK REED, Rhode Island RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM,
TIM ROEMER, Indiana California
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON,
GENE GREEN, Texas California
MEL REYNOLDS, Illinois \1\ MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware
CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania \2\ DAVE WELDON, Florida
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon \4\ WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania
HARRIS W. FAWELL, Illinois
------
Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education, Training and Life-Long
Learning
HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON,
California, Chairman
PAT WILLIAMS, Montana STEVE GUNDERSON, Wisconsin
ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana
JACK REED, Rhode Island WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania
TIM ROEMER, Indiana THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
XAVIER BECERRA, California MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey
GENE GREEN, Texas FRANK RIGGS, California
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California DAVID FUNDERBURK, North Carolina
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
----------
\1\ Resigned October 1, 1995.
\2\ Appointed October 11, 1995.
\3\ Resigned April 22, 1996.
\4\ Appointed June 12, 1996.
\5\ Resigned June 12, 1996.
Letter of Transmittal
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Economic
and Educational Opportunities,
Washington, DC, January 2, 1997.
Hon. Robin H. Carle,
Clerk of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. Carle: Pursuant to rule XI, clause 1, paragraph
(d) of the Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives, I am
hereby transmitting the Activities Report of the Committee on
Economic and Educational Opportunities for the 104th Congress.
This report summarizes the activities of the Committee and
its subcommittees with respect to its legislative and oversight
responsibilities.
This report has not been officially adopted by the
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities or any
subcommittee thereof and may not therefore necessarily reflect
the views of its members.
Sincerely,
Bill Goodling, Chairman.
INTRODUCTION
The Rules of the Committee on Economic and Educational
Opportunities for the 104th Congress provide for referral of
all matters under the Committee's jurisdiction to a
subcommittee. Five standing subcommittees with specified
jurisdiction are established by the Rules.
The jurisdiction of the Committee on Economic and
Educational Opportunities as set forth in rule X of the Rules
of the House of Representatives is as follows:
Extract From Rule X, Rules of the House of Representatives
----------
RULE X
Establishment and Jurisdiction of Standing Committees
the committees and their jurisdiction
1. There shall be in the House the following standing
committees, each of which shall have the jurisdiction and
related functions assigned to it by this clause and clauses 2,
3, and 4; and all bills, resolutions, and other matters
relating to subjects within the jurisdiction of any standing
committee as listed in this clause shall (in accordance with
and subject to clause 5) be referred to such committees, as
follows:
* * * * * * *
(f) Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities.
(1) Child labor.
(2) Columbia Institution for the Deaf, Dumb, and Blind;
Howard University; Freedmen's Hospital.
(3) Convict labor and the entry of goods made by convicts
into interstate commerce.
(4) Food programs for children in schools.
(5) Labor standards and statistics.
(6) Measures relating to education or labor generally.
(7) Mediation and arbitration of labor disputes.
(8) Regulation or prevention of importation of foreign
laborers under contract.
(9) United States Employees' Compensation Commission.
(10) Vocational rehabilitation.
(11) Wages and hours of labor.
(12) Welfare of miners.
(13) Work incentive programs.
In addition to its legislative jurisdiction under the
preceding provisions of this paragraph (and its general
oversight function under clause 2(b)(1)), the committee shall
have the special oversight function provided for in clause 3(c)
with respect to domestic educational programs and institutions,
and programs of student assistance, which are within the
jurisdiction of other committees.
Union Calendar No. 478
104th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 104-875
_______________________________________________________________________
REPORT OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND EDUCATIONAL
OPPORTUNITIES DURING THE 104TH CONGRESS
_______
January 2, 1997.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______________________________________________________________________
Mr. Goodling, from the Committee on Economic and Educational
Opportunities, submitted the following
R E P O R T
Summary
A total of 437 bills and resolutions were referred to the
Committee in the 104th Congress. A total of 28 public laws
resulted on issues within the Committee's jurisdiction. Two
bills referred to the Committee were vetoed. The Full Committee
and its five subcommittees conducted 116 days of hearings on
legislation under consideration and on oversight and
administration of laws within the jurisdiction of the
Committee. The Full Committee held 14 of these hearings.
Finally, the Full Committee and its subcommittee held a total
of 33 days of markup sessions in the consideration of
legislation with 21 of these being Full Commitee markup
sessions.
FULL COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES
With Republicans given the opportunity to lead the House of
Representatives and, as such the Committee on Economic and
Educational Opportunities, for the first time in 40 years, the
Members of the Committee began the process of reforming the
maze of hundreds of programs and laws that are well
intentioned, but often ineffective in truly helping improve
education for children and youth, human services for
disadvantaged citizens, and the workplace for employees and
employers. During the 104th Congress, the Committee on Economic
and Educational Opportunities focused on the following:
I. Summary of Activities
A. Welfare reform
The Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities had
a major role in the creation and eventual enactment of the
historic welfare reform legislation achieved by the 104th
Congress. Working together with the Committees on Ways and
Means and Agriculture, the Committee helped to shape welfare
reforms that (1) allow States flexibility to operate effective
welfare systems; (2) emphasize work and personal responsibility
as antidotes to long-term welfare dependence; (3) increase
funding for child care to enable poor families to escape
welfare and consolidate a former jumble of federal child care
programs; (4) streamline child nutrition programs and target
funding to the most needy families; (5) establish strong new
measures to enforce child support obligations and to combat
welfare fraud and abuse; (6) save taxpayer money; and (7)
eliminate benefits to illegal aliens and give priority for
benefits to citizens.
The path to reforming welfare was not an easy one. H.R. 4,
introduced as part of the Republican Contract with America, was
the subject of four hearings by the Committee. Subsequently, on
February 22 and 23, 1995, the Committee amended and approved
H.R. 999, which included those parts of H.R. 4, and changes
thereto, which were within the Committee's jurisdiction,
specifically, portions of the bill dealing with work
requirements for welfare recipients, child care programs,
programs on child protection, child nutrition programs, and
restrictions on benefits for non-citizens under programs within
the Committee's jurisdiction.
A principle aim of the reforms in H.R. 999 was the
simplification and consolidation of numerous federal programs
that have grown up in the area of social services, and thereby
reduce the burden of paperwork, red tape, and complication for
both beneficiaries and service providers. The goal was to allow
more of the funds to be used for actual services rather than
being soaked up by the costs of delivering those services. In
the area of child nutrition, the bill not only consolidated
programs and reduced paperwork, it also gave States the freedom
and opportunity to find new approaches to increase the
percentage of low income children that benefit from these
programs. For example, less than 50 percent of those eligible
for free or low priced school lunches actually participate in
this, the largest of the child nutrition programs. The bill
also included increased funding for the child nutrition
programs of 4.5 percent per year over the next 5 years.
H.R. 999 was incorporated into H.R. 4 which passed the
House of Representatives on March 24, 1995 and, after further
changes, was approved by the Senate on September 19, 1995.
Final legislation was approved on December 21, 1995 by the
House of Representatives, and approved by the Senate on
December 22, 1995. President Clinton vetoed H.R. 4, as well as
the budget bill which included most of the text of H.R. 4.
Pursuant to the Budget Resolution for fiscal year 1997, on
June 12, 1996 the Committee amended and approved an unnumbered
committee print containing those parts of welfare reform within
the Committee's jurisdiction. The Committee's submission was
incorporated into H.R. 3734, the Welfare and Medicaid Reform
Act of 1996, prior to consideration by the House of
Representatives. H.R. 3734 was approved by the House of
Representatives on July 18, 1996 and by the Senate on July 23,
1996. The Committee participated actively in the deliberations
of the bill by the House of Representatives as well as during
the House and Senate Conference on H.R. 3734. The conference
agreement was approved by the House on July 31, 1996 and by the
Senate on August 1, 1996. President Clinton signed the bill
into law as Public Law 104-193 on August 22, 1996.
Further descriptions of the Committee's activities related
to welfare, including Job Opportunities and Basic Skills
Program (JOBS), child welfare and child care, can be found in
the ``Postsecondary, Education, Training and Life-Long
Learning'' and the ``Early Childhood, Youth and Families''
sections of this report.
b. the congressional accountability act
In large part because of the efforts of the Members of the
Committee, the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA) was the
very first measure passed by the Republican-led 104th Congress.
This measure was signed into law as P.L. 104-1 by President
Clinton on January 23, 1995. Passage of the legislation marked
the culmination of a long effort by Republican Members of the
Committee to extend workplace laws to the Congress with
enforcement in the courts, including trials by juries.
The CAA effectively extends 11 workplace laws to the House
and the Senate. All but two of the laws (the Federal Labor-
Management Relations Act and the Occupational Safety and Health
Act) were applied to Congress on January 23, 1996:
1. Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
2. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
3. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
4. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
5. Titles I and V of the Family and Medical Leave Act
of 1993
6. Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (will
apply in January 1997)
7. Chapter 71 (relating to Federal service labor-
management relations) of title 5, United States Code
(applied in October 1996)
8. Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988
9. Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
10. Rehabilitation Act of 1973
11. Chapter 43 (relating to veterans' employment and
reemployment) of title 38, United States Code.
The Congress had been brought under some of these laws in the
past, but employees have never had the right to trial in court.
c. immigration reform
The Committee also had significant involvement in the
development of the comprehensive immigration reform legislation
that was enacted into law as part of the omnibus appropriations
bill. The Committee held a hearing on the issue of immigration
reform in San Diego, California on February 22, 1996, and heard
about the impact of both legal and illegal immigration from a
preeminent slate of witnesses led by the Governor of
California, Pete Wilson. Testimony was also received concerning
the impact of comprehensive immigration reform legislation--
H.R. 2202, Immigration in the National Interest Act of 1995--
upon public benefits' programs, and education and employment-
related laws under the jurisdiction of the Committee.
With respect to employment issues, the legislation
recognized that one of the primary inducements to illegal
immigration is the availability of U.S. jobs and that this
nation will never be able to fully control its borders with law
enforcement strategies alone. The immigration reform
legislation also recognized, however, the practical constraints
on employers in policing the attempts of immigrants to
illegally secure employment. The immigration reform bill
resolves this tension by including needed reforms in the
worksite verification process and authorizing a workable pilot
telephone verification system to allow employers to readily
document which applicants for employment are legally authorized
to work.
The legislation also recognizes the importance of
education-related benefits to legal immigrants. Under the bill,
legal immigrants will continue to be eligible to apply for and
receive benefits under the National School Lunch Act, the Child
Nutrition Act, the Head Start Act, the Job Training Partnership
Act, and the Higher Education Act of 1965, and participate in
programs funded under the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965.
The immigration reform legislation--ultimately enacted as
part of H.R. 3610, the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations
legislation for fiscal year 1997 (Public Law 104-208)--tackles
the problems caused by illegal immigration and fosters the
sense of responsibility that we hope will be felt by all
newcomers to our great nation. The immigration reform
accomplished by the Republican Congress brings this nation back
to the point where we can welcome the hope and creativity that
new voices can offer us while feeling secure that the wonderful
opportunities that life here presents will continue to be
available for generations to come.
D. STRIKER REPLACEMENT
On March 8, 1995, President Clinton issued Executive Order
No. 12954, which prohibited employers with federal contracts in
excess of $100,000 from hiring permanent replacements for
striking workers. That same day, legislation (H.R. 1176) was
introduced by Chairman Goodling and other Republican Members of
the Committee to render the Executive Order null and void.
The Committee held a hearing on H.R. 1176 and Executive
Order 12954 on April 5, 1995. The hearing focused on both the
policy implications of a ban on striker replacement workers and
on the legality, from a constitutional perspective, of the
Executive Order.
The Committee considered and reported H.R. 1176 on June 27,
1995. Although the full House did not consider H.R. 1176
separately, a provision precluding funding for the Executive
Order was included in the Labor, HHS appropriations bill (H.R.
2127) which was passed by the House on August 4, 1995. Further
legislative action became unnecessary when, on February 2,
1996, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
invalidated the Executive Order, and a subsequent
Administration petition for a rehearing was denied.
E. NUTRITION ACTIVITIES
1. Welfare reform
During the 104th Congress, the Committee on Economic and
Educational Opportunities helped initiate major changes to
federal child nutrition programs and the Special Supplemental
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children.
On February 1, 1995, the Committee held a hearing titled
``Nutrition, the Local Perspective.'' Local providers were
invited to testify on existing federal nutrition programs and
how their ability to provide nutrition services to
beneficiaries was impeded by burdensome, restrictive federal
regulations. It was clear from this hearing and past hearings
on child nutrition programs that the current programs were in
need of reform. Paperwork requirements and restrictive
regulations prevented providers from preparing and serving
nutritious meals which children would eat.
As a result, H.R. 999, the Welfare Reform Consolidation Act
of 1995 (as considered by the Committee) included two flexible
State block grants designed to replace existing nutrition
programs, to ease the burden on State and local providers and,
at the same time, to ensure the nutritional needs of low income
individuals were met.
The first block grant focused on school-based nutrition
programs, such as school lunch and school breakfast. It
provided funds to operate these programs as well as summer
feeding programs and programs to schools which provided
nutrition services to children in before and after-school child
care. In this way, schools would no longer be required to fill
out separate applications and meet a variety of conflicting
regulations in order to serve the same children under a variety
of programs designed to meet their nutritional needs.
The second block grant, the Family Nutrition Block Grant,
was designed to meet the nutritional needs of low income
children and pregnant mothers, provide meals and supplements to
children in child care and to provide for the operation of a
summer food program to meet the needs of children when they
were not in school. This program was focused on meeting the
needs of families with incomes below 185 percent of poverty.
Eighty percent of available program dollars were to be used for
a program to provide food assistance to pregnant, postpartum
and breastfeeding women, and infants and children (WIC) found
to be at nutritional risk.
H.R. 999, the Welfare Reform Consolidation Act of 1995,
which included both block grants, was reported by the Committee
on Economic and Educational Opportunities on February 23, 1995.
H.R. 999 was eventually merged with H.R. 4, the Personal
Responsibility Act, and sent to the President on December 29,
1995, and subsequently vetoed.
During the House-Senate Conference on the nutrition
provisions contained in the welfare bill, a decision was made
to allow up to seven States to receive block grant funds for
school lunch and school breakfast programs. States applying for
such funds would be required to serve the same or greater
proportion of poor and low income students. In addition,
conferees agreed to make major streamlining and paperwork
changes to the current child nutrition programs and to provide
greater flexibility to States and local providers. The bulk of
the savings attributable to changes in child nutrition programs
was derived from the implementation of a means test for
children in family day care homes receiving benefits under the
Child and Adult Care Food Program.
The Budget Reconciliation bill for fiscal year 1997, H.R.
3734, the Welfare and Medicaid Reform Act of 1996, as reported
from the Committee on June 12, 1996, contained a modified
version of this legislation. The block grant provisions were
eliminated, and several changes were made to strengthen
streamlining, paperwork reduction and flexibility provisions.
This legislation was signed into law by the President on August
22, 1996, and is now P.L. 104-193.
2. H.R. 2066, The Healthy Meals for Children Act
On May 1, 1996, the Committee on Economic and Educational
Opportunities reported H.R. 2066, The Healthy Meals for
Children Act. The purpose of this legislation was to amend the
National School Lunch Act to provide more flexibility to local
schools in demonstrating they have met the Dietary Guideline
requirements of the National School Lunch Act.
Final regulations were issued by the Department of
Agriculture to establish the new Dietary Guidelines-based
nutrition criteria and the menu-planning requirements for
implementing them were issued June 13, 1995. Unfortunately,
these regulations did not provide schools with the menu-
planning flexibility that Congress sought in the 1994
amendments. Schools which desired to comply with the Guidelines
by using another nutritionally sound approach, such as their
existing food-based menu system or their own meal pattern
revisions were required to get a waiver from the State. While
retaining the requirement that school meals comply with the
Dietary Guidelines, H.R. 2066 permits schools to use any
reasonable approach to achieve this goal. This change will
allow schools to prepare meals which are not only healthy and
nutritious, but which students will eat.
H.R. 2066 passed the House of Representatives on May 14,
1996, by voice vote, and the Senate on May 16, 1996, by voice
vote. The bill was signed into law by the President on May 29,
1996. It is Public Law 104-119.
3. H.R. 2428, The Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act
H.R. 2428, The Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation
Act, was introduced by Representative Pat Danner and the late
Representative Bill Emerson to encourage the donation of food
and grocery products to non-profit organizations for
distribution to needy individuals by giving the Model Good
Samaritan Food Donation Act the full force and effect of law.
A hearing on H.R. 2428 was held by the Subcommittee on
Postsecondary Education, Training and Life-Long Learning on May
31, 1996. Representative Pat Danner and several organizations,
which accepted and distributed donated foods, testified at this
hearing. Representative Bill Emerson was unable to testify
because of illness and submitted his testimony.
On June 26, 1996, the Economic and Educational
Opportunities Committee considered H.R. 2428 and ordered it
reported, as amended, by voice vote. H.R. 2428 was considered
by the House of Representatives and passed by voice vote on
July 12, 1996. The Senate amended and considered this
legislation on August 2, 1996, and returned it to the House of
Representatives for further consideration. The bill, as amended
by the Senate, was considered and passed by the House of
Representatives by unanimous consent on September 5, 1996. It
was signed into law by the President on October 1, 1996, and is
known as Public Law 104-210.
This legislation was originally enacted as a Sense of the
Congress Resolution in the National and Community Service Act
of 1990. The Good Samaritan Food Donation Act, at that time,
was to serve as a model law which States were encouraged to
adopt. The purpose of the Good Samaritan Food Donation Act was
to protect those who donate food in good faith from civil or
criminal liability should those consuming such donated food
later become sick or die. It did not, and does not, provide
such protections in cases of gross negligence or intentional
harm. This bill also paid tribute to Bill Emerson's lifelong
efforts to alleviate hunger in America.
F. SCHOOL REFORM
What works in public education?
During the 104th Congress the House Committee on Economic
and Educational Opportunities held several hearings on
education reform. Full Committee hearings were held on January
12, 1995, and January 31, 1996. Their purpose was to confirm
the need for education reform, to learn what type of reforms
were needed, and to identify reform practices that have been
proven effective.
Witnesses at the January 12, 1995, hearing provided Members
with national, State, and local perspectives on what is the
appropriate federal role in educational policy. The panel of
witnesses included Richard Riley, Secretary of Education,
Governor Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin, and Mayor Bret Schundler
of Jersey City, New Jersey. The overriding sentiment from the
hearing was that the federal government should encourage
innovation and excellence in education. According to the panel,
this can be accomplished by driving decisions to localities and
giving States and localities greater flexibility to design and
implement creative approaches to improving the quality of
education.
The purpose of the January 31, 1996, hearing was to learn
what works in public education. Members heard about a variety
of local school reform initiatives being implemented throughout
the country. While the structure and substance of reforms
differed, the net result was the same: student achievement and
parental satisfaction increased.
Further discussion on school reform can be found in the
``Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families'' and
``Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations'' sections of
this report.
Focusing on local control: Repeal of National Education Standards and
Improvement Council
On February 24, 1995, Chairman Bill Goodling introduced
H.R. 1045 which repealed the National Education Standards and
Improvement Council (NESIC) created by the Goals 2000: Educate
America Act of 1994. NESIC was a Presidentially appointed
council with the mission of reviewing and certifying national
education standards and State education standards that are
voluntarily submitted to it. Because decisions about educating
children are primarily decided at the local level by parents,
teachers and students, NESIC, commonly referred to as a
``national school board'' by its critics, generated great
controversy about continued local control of education.
On May 10, 1995, H.R. 1045 was ordered reported by the
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities by a voice
vote and no Committee report was filed. On May 15, 1995, H.R.
1045 passed the House of Representatives by voice vote under
Suspension of the Rules. The Senate never took action on H.R.
1045, however NESIC was subsequently repealed by amendments
made in Public Law 104-134, the Balanced Budget Downpayment Act
II enacted on April 26, 1996.
Education technology
The Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee,
recognizing the importance of gathering information on
technology uses in the classroom, held a joint hearing on
October 12, 1995 with the House Science Committee. The hearing,
entitled ``Education Technology in the 21st Century,'' focused
on the impact of technology in elementary and secondary school
classrooms today and what to expect in the classrooms of the
21st Century.
G. NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS--NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE
HUMANITIES
While authorization for the National Endowment for the Arts
(NEA) expired at the end of fiscal year 1993, funding has
continued to be appropriated on a yearly basis since that time.
However, no authorizing legislation has been enacted primarily
because of controversy surrounding a number of works funded by
the NEA.
On May 3, 1995, Chairman Bill Goodling introduced H.R.
1557, a bill to authorize the NEA and the National Endowment
for Humanities (NEH) for three additional years with a phase-
out effective as of September 30, 1998. The bill provided for
the continuation of the Institute of Museum Services, but with
no phase-out. H.R. 1557, as amended by a Committee substitute,
was approved by the Economic and Educational Opportunities
Committee on May 10, 1995. Though no further action took place
in the House of Representatives or the Senate, the fiscal year
1996 Interior Appropriations bill, H.R. 1977, reduced funding
levels for the NEA and NEH approximately 40 percent to levels
near the authorizing bill's proposed funding levels.
The three year phase-out would have returned control of
arts and humanities programs to the State and local level,
provided for the orderly transition of arts and humanities
funding back to the private sector, and would have helped
reduce deficit spending.
II. Meetings Held by the Full Committee
104th Congress, First Session
January 5, 1995--Committee organizational meeting.
January 11, 1995--Oversight hearing on the proper federal
role in education policy.
January 12, 1995--Oversight hearing on the proper federal
role in education policy.
January 18, 1995--Hearing on H.R. 4, Personal
Responsibility Act of 1995.
February 1, 1995--Oversight hearing on the Contract with
America: Nutrition, the local perspective.
February 7, 1995--Committee budget request and oversight
plan for the 104th Congress.
February 22, 1995--Mark-up of H.R. 999, ``Welfare Reform
Consolidation Act of 1995''.
February 23, 1995--Mark-up of H.R. 999, ``Welfare Reform
Consolidation Act of 1995''.
March 15, 1995--Mark-up of H.R. 849, ``Age Discrimination
in Employment Amendments of 1995''.
April 5, 1995--Hearing on H.R. 1176, to nullify Executive
Order 12954, prohibiting federal contracts with companies that
hire permanent replacements for striking workers.
May 10, 1995--Mark-up of H.R. 1045, to amend goals 2000,
NESIC.
Mark-up of H.R. 1557, ``Arts, Humanities, and Human
Services Act''.
May 11, 1995--Hearing on H.R. 743, Teamwork for Managers
Act of 1995.
May 24, 1995--Mark-up of H.R. 1617, ``Workforce and Career
Development Act of 1996''.
June 7, 1995--Hearing on Departmental Reorganization.
June 8, 1995--Mark-up of H.R. 1720, ``Privatization Act of
1995''.
June 14, 1995--Mark-up of H.R. 1176, to nullify Executive
Order 12954, prohibiting federal contracts with companies that
hire permanent replacements for striking workers.
June 22, 1995--Mark-up of H.R. 1715, respecting the
relationship between workers' compensation benefits and the
benefits available under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural
Worker Protection Act.
Mark-up of H.R. 743, ``Teamwork for Employees and Managers
Act''.
June 29, 1995--Hearing on Departmental Reorganization.
July 20, 1995--Mark-up of H.R. 1594, regarding Pension
Protection Act (ETI).
Mark-up of H.R. 1225, ``Court Reporter Fair Labor
Amendments of 1995''.
Mark-up of H.R. 1114, to authorize minors who are under the
child labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
and who are under 18 years of age to load materials into balers
and compactors that meet appropriate American National
Standards Institute design safety standards.
July 25, 1995--Hearing on Departmental Reorganization.
September 28, 1995--Mark-up of instructions contained in
the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget Resolution for FY 1996.
October 12, 1995--Joint hearing on technology in the 21st
century, held with the Committee on Science.
104th Congress, Second Session
January 31, 1996--Oversight hearing on what works in public
education.
February 7, 1996--Hearing on H.R. 2497, to amend the
National Labor Relations Act.
February 22, 1996--Field hearing on H.R. 2202, Immigration
in the National Interest Act of 1995, held in San Diego,
California.
March 6, 1996--Mark-up of H.R. 995, ``ERISA Targeted Health
Insurance Reform Act of 1995''.
Consideration of Resolutions regarding the Congressional
Accountability Act; Committee instructed Chairman to seek
adoption of the Resolutions by the House.
March 14, 1996--Mark-up of H.R. 2570, ``Older Americans
Amendments of 1996''.
Mark-up of H.R. 3049, to amend section 1505 of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 to provide for the continuity of the
Board of Trustees of the Institute of American Indian and
Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development.
Mark-up of H.R. 3055, to amend section 326 of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 to permit continued participation by
Historically Black Graduate Professional Schools in the grant
program authorized by that section.
March 21, 1996--Mark-up of H.R. 1227, to amend the Portal-
to-Portal Act of 1947 relating to the payment of wages to
employees who use employer owned vehicles.
Mark-up of H.R. 2531, to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 to clarify the exemption for houseparents from the
minimum wage and maximum hours requirements of that Act, and
for other purposes.
April 12, 1996--Joint field hearing on salting, held in
Overland Park, Kansas, with the Committee on Small Business.
May 1, 1996--Mark-up of H.R. 2066, ``Healthy Meals for
Children Act''.
Mark-up of H.R. 3269, ``Impact Aid Technical Amendments Act
of 1996''.
May 30, 1996--Mark-up of H.R. 3268, ``IDEA Improvement Act
of 1996''.
June 12, 1996--Consideration of Welfare Reform Committee
Print
June 26, 1996--Mark-up of H.R. 2391, ``Working Families
Flexibility Act of 1996''.
Mark-up of H.R. 2428, ``Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food
Donation Act''.
July 24, 1996--Mark-up of H.R. 123, ``English Language
Empowerment Act of 1996''.
August 1, 1996--Mark-up of H.R. 3863, ``Student Debt
Reduction Act of 1996''.
Mark-up of H.R. 3876, ``Juvenile Crime Control and
Delinquency Prevention Act of 1996''.
Mark-up of H.Res. 470, Expressing the Sense of the Congress
that the Department of Education should play a more active role
in monitoring and enforcing compliance with the provisions of
the Higher Education Act of 1965 related to campus crime.
August 2, 1996--Continue Mark-up of H.R. 3876, ``Juvenile
Crime Control and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1996''.
III. Legislative Activities
A. Legislation Enacted into Law
P.L. 104-26 (H.R. 1225), ``Court Reporter Fair Labor
Amendments of 1995''.
P.L. 104-49 (H.R. 1715), respecting the relationship
between workers' compensation benefits and the benefits
available under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker
Protection Act.
P.L. 104-141 (H.R. 3055), to amend section 326 of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 to permit continued participation
by Historically Black Graduate Professional Schools in the
grant program authorized by that section.
P.L. 104-149 (H.R. 2066), ``Healthy Meals for Children
Act''.
P.L. 104-174 (H.R. 1114), to authorize minors who are under
the child labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 and who are under 18 years of age to load materials into
balers and compactors that meet appropriate American National
Standards Institute design safety standards.
P.L. 104-191 (H.R. 3103), ``Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act of 1996''.
P.L. 104-195 (H.R. 3269), ``Impact Aid Technical Amendments
Act of 1996''.
P.L. 104-210 (H.R. 2428), ``Bill Emerson Good Samaritan
Food Donation Bill''.
P.L. 104-272 (H.R. 4167), ``Professional Boxing Safety Act
of 1996''.
P.L. 104-331 (H.R. 3452), ``Presidential and Executive
Office Accountability Act''.
B. Legislation Enacted as Part of Another Measure
H.R. 1, ``Congressional Accountability Act of 1995''.
Provisions of the bill were included in S. 2 and enacted as
P.L. 104-1.
H.R. 4, ``Personal Responsibility Act of 1995''. Provisions
of the bill were included in H.R. 3734 and enacted as P.L. 104-
193.
H.R. 849, ``Age Discrimination in Employment Amendments'',
was included in H.R. 3610 and enacted as P.L. 104-208.
H.R. 995, ``ERISA Targeted Health Insurance Reform Act of
1995''. Provisions of the bill were included in H.R. 3103 and
enacted as P.L. 104-191.
H.R. 999, ``Welfare Reform Consolidation Act of 1995''.
Incorporated into H.R. 4 and provisions of the bill were
included in H.R. 3734 and enacted as P.L. 104-193.
H.R. 1227, ``Employee Commuting Flexibility Act'', was
included in H.R. 3448 and enacted as P.L. 104-188.
H.R. 1617, ``Workforce and Career Development Act of
1996''. Provisions of the bill were included in H.R. 3610 and
enacted as P.L. 104-208.
H.R. 1720, ``Privatization Act of 1995''. Provisions of the
bill were included in H.R. 3610 and enacted as P.L. 104-208.
H.R. 2202, ``Immigration in the National Interest Act of
1995'', was included in H.R. 3610 and enacted as P.L. 104-208.
H.R. 2396, ``Congressional Award Act Amendments of 1995'',
was included in H.R. 3610 and enacted as P.L. 104-208.
H.R. 3160, ``Health Coverage Availability and Affordability
Act of 1996''. Provisions of the bill were included in H.R.
3103 and enacted as P.L. 104-191.
H.R. 3286, ``Adoption Promotion and Stability Act of
1996''. Provisions of the bill were included in H.R. 3448 and
enacted as P.L. 104-188.
H.R. 3803, ``George Bush School of Government and Public
Service Act'', was included in H.R. 4036 and enacted as P.L.
104-319.
H.R. 3829, ``Welfare Reform Reconciliation Act of 1996'',
considered as original text of H.R. 3734 and enacted as P.L.
104-193.
H.R. 4282, to amend the National Defense Authorization Act
for FY 93 to make a technical correction relating the provision
of DOD assistance to local educational agencies, was included
in H.R. 3610 and enacted as P.L. 104-208.
S. 1267, ``Congressional Award Act Amendments of 1995'',
was included in H.R. 3610 and enacted as P.L. 104-208.
S. 1972, ``Older Americans Indian Technical Amendments
Act'', was included in H.R. 3610 and enacted as P.L. 104-208.
c. bills not referred to committee and enacted into public law
containing provisions or bills under the jurisdiction of the committee
on economic and educational opportunities
H.R. 3230, ``National Defense Authorization Act for FY
97'', includes Impact Aid provisions and enacted as P.L. 104-
201.
H.R. 3448, ``Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996'',
includes H.R. 1227, ERISA amendments, and adoption provisions
of H.R. 3286 under Section 1808 and enacted as P.L. 104-188.
H.R. 3610, making appropriations for the Department of
Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for
other purposes (Omnibus FY 97 Appropriations Bill). This bill
includes impact aid, labor and needs based federal education
programs provisions along with provisions from the following
bills and was enacted as P.L. 104-208: H.R. 849, H.R. 1617
(museum and library services), H.R. 1720 (Sallie Mae and Connie
Lee), H.R. 2202, S. 1972, H.R. 4282, H.R. 2396, and S. 1267.
H.R. 3734, ``Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Act of 1996''. This bill includes welfare provisions from the
following bills and was enacted as P.L. 104-193: H.R. 999, H.R.
4 and H.R. 3829.
H.R. 4036, to strengthen the protection of internationally
recognized human rights, includes H.R. 3803 and enacted as P.L.
104-319.
S. 2, to make certain laws applicable to the legislative
branch of the Federal Government, includes provisions of H.R. 1
and enacted as P.L. 104-1.
S. 377, to amend a provision of part A of title IX of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, relating to
Indian education, to provide a technical amendment, includes
secondary education provisions and enacted as P.L. 104-5.
S. 919, to modify and reauthorize the Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act, and for other purposes. This bill
is under the jurisdiction of the Committee and was held at the
desk before being enacted as P.L. 104-235.
S. 1124/H.R. 1530, ``National Defense Authorization Act for
FY 96'', includes Impact Aid provisions and enacted as P.L.
104-106.
S. 2183, to make technical corrections to the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.
This bill makes technical corrections to welfare provisions
under the jurisdiction of the Committee and was enacted as P.L.
104-327.
d. Legislation Passed the House
H.R. 1, ``Congressional Accountability Act of 1995''.
H.R. 4, ``Personal Responsibility Act of 1995''.
H.R. 123, ``Bill Emerson English Language Empowerment Act
of 1996''.
H.R. 743, ``Teamwork for Employers and Managers Act of
1995''.
H.R. 849, ``Age Discrimination in Employment Amendments of
1995''.
H.R. 1045, ``To amend Goals 2000: Educate America Act to
eliminate the National Education Standards and Improvement
Council.
H.R. 1114, to authorize minors who are under the child
labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
who are under 18 years of age to load materials into balers and
compactors that meet appropriate American National Standards
Institute design safety standards.
H.R. 1225, ``Court Reporter Fair Labor Amendments of
1995''.
H.R. 1227, to amend the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947
relating to the payment of wages to employees who use employer
owned vehicles.
H.R. 1594, to place restrictions on the promotion by the
Department of Labor and other Federal agencies and
instrumentalities of economically targeted investments in
connection with employee benefit plans.
H.R. 1617, ``Workforce and Career Development Act of
1996''.
H.R. 1715, respecting the relationship between workers'
compensation benefits and the benefits available under the
Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act.
H.R. 1720, ``Privatization Act of 1995''.
H.R. 2066, ``Healthy Meals for Children Act''.
H.R. 2092, ``Private Security Officer Quality Assurance Act
of 1995''.
H.R. 2202, ``Immigration in the National Interest Act of
1995''.
H.R. 2391, ``Working Families Flexibility Act of 1996''.
H.R. 2428, to encourage the donation of food and grocery
products to nonprofit organizations for distribution to needy
individuals by giving the Model Good Samaritan Food Donation
Act the full force and effect of law.
H.R. 3049, to amend section 1505 of the Higher Education
Act of 1965 to provide for the continuity of the Board of
Trustees of the Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native
Culture and Arts Development.
H.R. 3055, to amend section 326 of the Higher Education Act
of 1965 to permit continued participation by Historically Black
Graduate Professional Schools in the grant program authorized
by that section.
H.R. 3103, ``Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996''.
H.R. 3268, ``IDEA Improvement Act of 1996''.
H.R. 3269, ``Impact Aid Technical Amendments Act of 1996''.
H.R. 3286, ``Adoption Promotion and Stability Act of
1996''.
H.R. 3452, ``Presidential and Executive Office
Accountability Act''.
H.R. 3803, ``George Bush School of Government and Public
Service Act''.
H.R. 3863, ``Student Debt Reduction Act of 1996''.
H.R. 4134, to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to
authorize States to deny public education benefits to aliens
not lawfully present in the United States who are not enrolled
in public schools during the period beginning September, 1,
1996, and ending July 1, 1997.
H.R. 4167, ``Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996''.
H.R. 4282, to amend the National Defense Authorization Act
for FY 93 to make a technical correction relating to the
provision of the Department of Defense Assistance to local
educational agencies.
H.Con.Res. 123, to provide for the provisional approval of
regulations applicable to certain covered employing offices and
covered employees and to be issued by the Office of Compliance
before January 23, 1996.
H.Con.Res. 207, approving certain regulations to implement
provisions of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995
relating to labor-management relations with respect to covered
employees, other than employees of the House of Representatives
and employees of the Senate, and for other purposes.
H.Res. 311, to provide for the provisional approval of
regulations applicable to the House of Representatives and
employees of the House of Representatives and to be issued by
the Office of Compliance before January 23, 1996.
H.Res. 470, expressing the sense of the Congress that the
Department of Education should play a more active role in
monitoring and enforcing compliance with the provisions of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 relating to crime.
H.Res. 504, approving certain regulations to implement
provisions of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995
relating to labor-management relations with respect to
employing offices and covered employees of the House of
Representatives, and for other purposes.
S. 1972, ``Older Americans Indian Technical Amendments
Act''.
e. legislation passed the house in another measure
H.R. 1, ``Congressional Accountability Act of 1995''.
Provisions of the bill passed the House in S. 2.
H.R. 4, ``Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act
of 1995''. Provisions of the bill passed the House in H.R.
2491.
H.R. 4, ``Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act
of 1995''. Provisions of the bill passed the House in H.R.
3734.
H.R. 5, ``ERISA Targeted Health Insurance Reform Act of
1995''. Provisions of the bill passed the House in H.R. 3103.
H.R. 999, ``Welfare Reform Consolidation Act of 1995'',
passed the House in H.R. 4.
H.R. 1157, ``Welfare Transformation Act of 1995'', passed
the House in H.R. 4.
H.R. 1214, ``Personal Responsibility Act of 1995'', passed
the House as original text of H.R. 4.
H.R. 1227, to amend the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947
relating to the payment of wages to employees who use employer
owned vehicles, passed the House in H.R. 3448.
H.R. 1617, ``Workforce and Career Development Act of
1996'', passed the House in S. 1972.
H.R. 1720, ``Privatization Act of 1995'', passed the House
in H.R. 1617.
H.R. 1720, ``Privatization Act of 1995'', passed the House
in S. 1972.
H.R. 2332, ``Consolidated and Reformed Education,
Employment, and Rehabilitation Systems Act'' or ``CAREERS
Act''. Provisions of the bill passed the House in H.R. 1617.
H.R. 2517, ``Seven-Year Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act
of 1995'', passed the House as text of H.R. 2491.
H.R. 3160, ``Health Coverage Availability and Affordability
Act of 1996''. Provisions of the bill passed the House in H.R.
3103.
H.R. 3803, ``George Bush School of Government and Public
Service Act'', passed the House in H.R. 4036.
H.R. 3829, ``Welfare Reform Reconciliation Act of 1996'',
passed the House as original text of H.R. 3734.
H.R. 3863, ``Student Debt Reduction Act of 1996'', passed
the House in S. 1972.
H.R. 3898, ``English Language Empowerment Act of 1996''.
Provisions of the bill passed the House in H.R. 123.
f. legislation with filed reports
H.R. 123 (H.Rept. 104-723), ``Bill Emerson English Language
Empowerment Act of 1996''.
H.R. 743 (H.Rept. 104-248), ``Teamwork for Employers and
Managers Act of 1995''.
H.R. 995 (H.Rept. 104-498, Pt. 1), ``ERISA Targeted Health
Insurance Reform Act of 1995''.
H.R. 999 (H.Rept. 104-75, Pt. 1), ``Welfare Reform
Consolidation Act of 1995''.
H.R. 1114 (H.Rept. 104-278), to authorize minors who are
under the child labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 and who are under 18 years of age to load materials
into balers and compactors that meet appropriate American
National Standards Institute design safety standards.
H.R. 1176 (H.Rept. 104-163), to nullify an executive order
that prohibits Federal contracts with companies that hire
permanent replacements for striking employees.
H.R. 1225 (H.Rept. 104-219), ``Court Reporter Fair Labor
Amendments of 1995''.
H.R. 1227 (H.Rept. 104-585), to amend the Portal-to-Portal
Act of 1947 relating to the payment of wages to employees who
use employer owned vehicles.
H.R. 1557 (H.Rept. 104-170), ``Arts, Humanities, and Museum
Services Amendments of 1995''.
H.R. 1594 (H.Rept. 104-238), to place restrictions on the
promotion by the Departments of Labor and other Federal
agencies and instrumentalities of economically targeted
investments in connection with employee benefit plans.
H.R. 1617 (H.Rept. 104-152), ``Workforce and Career
Development Act of 1996''.
H.R. 1720 (H.Rept. 104-153), ``Privatization Act of 1995''.
H.R. 2066 (H.Rept. 104-561), ``Healthy Meals for Children
Act''.
H.R. 2391 (H.Rept. 104-670), ``Working Families Flexibility
Act of 1996''.
H.R. 2428 (H.Rept. 104-661), to encourage the donation of
food and grocery products to nonprofit organizations for
distribution to needy individuals by giving the Model Good
Samaritan Food Donation Act the full force and effect of law.
H.R. 2531 (H.Rept. 104-592), to amend the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 to clarify the exemption for houseparents
from the minimum wage and maximum hours requirements of that
Act, and for other purposes.
H.R. 2570 (H.Rept. 104-539), ``Older Americans Amendments
of 1995''.
H.R. 3049 (H.Rept. 104-505), to amend section 1505 of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide for the continuity of
the Board of Trustees of the Institute of American Indian and
Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development.
H.R. 3055 (H.Rept. 104-504), to amend section 326 of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 to permit continued participation
by Historically Black Graduate Professional Schools in the
grant program authorized by that section.
H.R. 3268 (H.Rept. 104-614), ``IDEA Improvement Act of
1996''.
H.R. 3269 (H.Rept. 104-560), ``Impact Aid Technical
Amendments Act of 1996''.
H.R. 3863 (H.Rept. 104-775), ``Student Debt Reduction Act
of 1996''.
H.R. 3876 (H.Rept. 104-783), ``Juvenile Crime Control and
Delinquency Prevention Act of 1996''.
H.Con.Res. 470 (H.Rept. 104-776), expressing the sense of
the Congress that the Department of Education should play a
more active role in monitoring and enforcing compliance with
the provisions of the Higher Education Act of 1965 related to
campus crime.
g. bills not referred to committee that passed the house containing
provisions or bills under the jurisdiction of the committee on economic
and education opportunities
H.R. 1530, to authorize appropriations for FY 96 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe
military personnel strengths for FY 96, includes Impact Aid
provisions (sec. 394).
H.R. 2491, ``Balance Budget Act of 1995'', includes welfare
reform, student aid and ERISA provisions along with provisions
from the following bills: H.R. 4, and H.R. 2517.
H.R. 3230, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1997
for military activities of the Department of Defense, to
prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 1997,
and for other purposes, includes Impact Aid provisions.
H.R. 3448, ``Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996'',
includes H.R. 1227, ERISA amendments, and adoption provisions
of H.R. 3286 under Section 1808.
H.R. 3610, making appropriations for the Department of
Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for
other purposes (Omnibus FY 97 Appropriations Bill), includes
impact aid provisions.
H.R. 3734, ``Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996'', includes welfare reform
provisions from H.R. 999, H.R. 4 and H.R. 3829.
H.R. 4036, to strengthen the protection of internationally
recognized human rights, includes H.R. 3803.
H.Con.Res. 108, to correct technical errors in the
enrollment of the bill H.R. 1594, includes technical correction
to ETI provisions.
S. 2, to make certain laws applicable to the legislative
branch of the Federal Government, includes provisions of H.R.
1.
S. 377, to amend a provision of part A, of title IX of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, relating to
Indian education, to provide a technical amendment, and for
other purposes, includes secondary education provisions.
S. 919, to modify and reauthorize the Child Abuse and
Prevention Treatment Act, and for other purposes. This bill
under the jurisdiction of the Committee was held at the Desk
before passing the House.
S. 1124, ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1996'', includes Impact Aid provisions.
S. 2183, to make technical corrections to the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996,
includes technical correction to welfare provisions.
H.Res. 400, approving regulations to implement provisions
of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-1)
with respect to employing offices and covered employees of the
House of Representatives.
H.Res. 401, directing the Office of Compliance to provide
educational assistance to employing offices of the House of
Representatives regarding compliance with the Congressional
Accountability Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-1) and requiring employing
offices of the House of Representatives to obtain prior
approval of the chairman and ranking minority party member of
the Committee on House Oversight of the House of
Representatives of the amount of any settlement payments made
under such Act.
S.Con.Res. 51, to provide for the approval of final
regulations that are applicable to employing offices that are
not employing offices of the House of Representatives or the
Senate, and to covered employees who are not employees of the
House of Representatives or the Senate, and that were issued by
the Office of Compliance on January 22, 1996, and for other
purposes.
h. legislation ordered reported from full committee
H.R. 123, ``Bill Emerson English Language Empowerment Act
of 1996''.
H.R. 743, ``Teamwork for Employers and Managers Act of
1995''.
H.R. 849, ``Age Discrimination in Employment Amendments of
1995''.
H.R. 995, ``ERISA Targeted Health Insurance Reform Act of
1995''.
H.R. 999, ``Welfare Reform Consolidation Act of 1995''.
H.R. 1114, to authorize minors who are under the child
labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
who are under 18 years of age to load materials into balers and
compactors that meet appropriate American National Standards
Institute design safety standards.
H.R. 1176, to nullify an executive order that prohibits
Federal contracts with companies that hire permanent
replacements for striking employees.
H.R. 1225, ``Court Reporter Fair Labor Amendments of
1995''.
H.R. 1227, to amend the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947
relating to the payment of wages to employees who use employer
owned vehicles.
H.R. 1557, ``Arts, Humanities, and Museum Services
Amendments of 1995''.
H.R. 1594, to place restrictions on the promotion by the
Department of Labor and other Federal agencies and
instrumentalities of economically targeted investments in
connection with employee benefit plans.
H.R. 1617, ``Workforce and Career Development Act of
1996''.
H.R. 1715, respecting the relationship between workers'
compensation benefits and the benefits available under the
Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act.
H.R. 1720, ``Privatization Act of 1995''.
H.R. 2066, ``Healthy Meals for Children Act''.
H.R. 2391, ``Working Families Flexibility Act of 1996''.
H.R. 2428, to encourage the donation of food and grocery
products to nonprofit organizations for distribution to needy
individuals by giving the Model Good Samaritan Food Donation
Act the full force and effect of law.
H.R. 2570, ``Older Americans Amendments of 1995''.
H.R. 3049, to amend section 1505 of the Higher Education
Act of 1965 to provide for the continuity if the Board of
Trustees of the Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native
Culture and Arts Development.
H.R. 3055, to amend section 326 of the higher Education Act
of 1965 to permit continued participation by Historically Black
Graduate Professional Schools it he grant program authorized by
that section.
H.R. 3268, ``IDEA Improvement Act of 1996''.
H.R. 3269, ``Impact Aid Technical Amendments Act of 1996''.
H.R. 3863, ``Student Debt Reduction Act of 1996''.
H.R. 3876, ``Juvenile Crime control and Delinquency
Prevention Act of 1996''.
H.Con.Res. 470, expressing the sense of the Congress that
the Department of Education should play a more active role in
monitoring and enforcing compliance with the provisions of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 related to campus crime.
I. Legislation Vetoed
H.R. 4, ``Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act
of 1995''.
H.R. 743, ``Teamwork for Employees and Managers Act of
1995''.
Legislation Considered at Full Committee and Not Reported From
Subcommittee
A. Legislation Enacted into Law
P.L. 104-49 (H.R. 1715), respecting the relationship
between workers' compensation benefits and the benefits
available under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker
Protection Act.
P.L. 104-141 (H.R. 3055), to amend section 326 of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 to permit continued participation
by Historically Black Graduate Professional Schools in the
grant program authorized by that section.
P.L. 104-272 (H.R. 4167), ``Professional Boxing Safety Act
of 1996''.
P.L. 104-331 (H.R. 3452), ``Presidential and Executive
Office Accountability Act''.
B. Legislation Enacted as Part of Another Measure
H.R. 1, ``Congressional Accountability Act of 1995''.
Provisions of the bill were included in S. 2 and enacted as
P.L. 104-1.
H.R. 4, ``Personal Responsibility Act of 1995''. Provisions
of the bill were included in H.R. 3734 and enacted as P.L. 104-
193.
H.R. 999, ``Welfare Reform Consolidation Act of 1995''.
Incorporated into H.R. 4 and provisions of the bill were
included in H.R. 3734 and enacted as P.L. 104-193.
H.R. 1720, ``Privatization Act of 1995''. Provisions of the
bill were included in H.R. 3610 and enacted as P.L. 104-208.
H.R. 2202, ``Immigration in the National Interest Act of
1995'', was included in H.R. 3610 and enacted as P.L. 104-208.
H.R. 3829, ``Welfare Reform Reconciliation Act of 1996'',
considered as original text of H.R. 3734 and enacted as P.L.
104-193.
H.R. 4282, to amend the National Defense Authorization Act
for FY 93 to make a technical correction relating the provision
of DOD assistance to local educational agencies, was included
in H.R. 3610 and enacted as P.L. 104-208.
C. Legislation Passed the House
H.R. 1, ``Congressional Accountability Act of 1995''.
H.R. 4, ``Personal Responsibility Act of 1995''.
H.R. 1045, ``To amend Goals 2000: Educate America Act to
eliminate the National Education Standards and Improvement
Council.
H.R. 1715, respecting the relationship between workers'
compensation benefits and the benefits available under the
Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act.
H.R. 1720, ``Privatization Act of 1995''.
H.R. 2202, ``Immigration in the National Interest Act of
1995''.
H.R. 3049, to amend section 1505 of the Higher Education
Act of 1965 to provide for the continuity of the Board of
Trustees of the Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native
Culture and Arts Development.
H.R. 3055, to amend section 326 of the Higher Education Act
of 1965 to permit continued participation by Historically Black
Graduate Professional Schools in the grant program authorized
by that section.
H.R. 3452, ``Presidential and Executive Office
Accountability Act''.
H.R. 3863, ``Student Debt Reduction Act of 1996''.
H.R. 4134, to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to
authorize States to deny public education benefits to aliens
not lawfully present in the United States who are not enrolled
in public schools during the period beginning September, 1,
1996, and ending July 1, 1997.
H.R. 4167, ``Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996''.
H.R. 4282, to amend the National Defense Authorization Act
for FY 93 to make a technical correction relating to the
provision of the Department of Defense Assistance to local
educational agencies.
H.Con.Res. 123, to provide for the provisional approval of
regulations applicable to certain covered employing offices and
covered employees and to be issued by the Office of Compliance
before January 23, 1996.
H.Con.Res. 207, approving certain regulations to implement
provisions of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995
relating to labor-management relations with respect to covered
employees, other than employees of the House of Representatives
and employees of the Senate, and for other purposes.
H.Res. 311, to provide for the provisional approval of
regulations applicable to the House of Representatives and
employees of the House of Representatives and to be issued by
the Office of Compliance before January 23, 1996.
H.Res. 470, expressing the sense of the Congress that the
Department of Education should play a more active role in
monitoring and enforcing compliance with the provisions of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 relating to crime.
H.Res. 504, approving certain regulations to implement
provisions of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995
relating to labor-management relations with respect to
employing offices and covered employees of the House of
Representatives, and for other purposes.
D. Legislation Passed the House in Another Measure
H.R. 1, ``Congressional Accountability Act of 1995''.
Provisions of the bill passed the House in S. 2.
H.R. 4, ``Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act
of 1995''. Provisions of the bill passed the House in H.R.
2491.
H.R. 4, ``Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act
of 1995''. Provisions of the bill passed the House in H.R.
3734.
H.R. 999, ``Welfare Reform Consolidation Act of 1995'',
passed the House in H.R. 4.
H.R. 1157, ``Welfare Transformation Act of 1995'', passed
the House in H.R. 4.
H.R. 1214, ``Personal Responsibility Act of 1995'', passed
the House as original text of H.R. 4.
H.R. 1720, ``Privatization Act of 1995'', passed the House
in S. 1972.
H.R. 1720, ``Privatization Act of 1995'', passed the House
in H.R. 1617.
H.R. 2517, ``Seven-Year Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act
of 1995'', passed the House as text of H.R. 2491.
H.R. 3829, ``Welfare Reform Reconciliation Act of 1996'',
passed the House as original text of H.R. 3734.
H.R. 3863, ``Student Debt Reduction Act of 1996'', passed
the House in S. 1972.
E. Legislation with Filed Reports
H.R. 999 (H.Rept. 104-75, Pt. 1), ``Welfare Reform
Consolidation Act of 1995''.
H.R. 1176 (H.Rept. 104-163), to nullify an executive order
that prohibits Federal contracts with companies that hire
permanent replacements for striking employees.
H.R. 1557 (H.Rept. 104-170), ``Arts, Humanities, and Museum
Services Amendments of 1995''.
H.R. 1720 (H.Rept. 104-153), ``Privatization Act of 1995''.
H.R. 3049 (H.Rept. 104-505), to amend section 1505 of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide for the continuity of
the Board of Trustees of the Institute of American Indian and
Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development.
H.R. 3055 (H.Rept. 104-504), to amend section 326 of the
higher Education Act of 1965 to permit continued participation
by Historically Black Graduate Professional Schools in the
grant program authorized by that section.
H.R. 3863 (H.Rept. 104-775), ``Student Debt Reduction Act
of 1996''.
H.Con.Res. 470 (H.Rept. 104-776), expressing the sense of
the Congress that the Department of Education should play a
more active role in monitoring and enforcing compliance with
the provisions of the Higher Education Act of 1965 related to
campus crime.
F. Legislation Ordered Reported from Full Committee
H.R. 999, ``Welfare Reform Consolidation Act of 1995''.
H.R. 1176, to nullify an executive order that prohibits
Federal contracts with companies that hire permanent
replacements for striking employees.
H.R. 1557, ``Arts, Humanities, and Museum Services
Amendments of 1995''.
H.R. 1715, respecting the relationship between workers'
compensation benefits and the benefits available under the
Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act.
H.R. 1720, ``Privatization Act of 1995''.
H.R. 3049, to amend section 1505 of the Higher Education
Act of 1965 to provide for the continuity of the Board of
Trustees of the Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native
Culture and Arts Development.
H.R. 3055, to amend section 326 of the higher Education Act
of 1965 to permit continued participation by Historically Black
Graduate Professional Schools in the grant program authorized
by that section.
H.R. 3863, ``Student Debt Reduction Act of 1996''.
H. Con. Res. 470, expressing the sense of the Congress that
the Department of Education should play a more active role in
monitoring and enforcing compliance with the provisions of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 related to campus crime.
G. Legislation Vetoed
H.R. 4, ``Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act
of 1995''.
H. STATISTICS ON BILLS CONSIDERED AT FULL COMMITTEE AND NOT REPORTED
FROM SUBCOMMITTEE
Total Number of Bills Considered at Full Committee and Not
Reported from Subcommittee.................................... 48
Total Number of Bills Ordered Reported from Full Committee........ 9
Total Number of Filed Reports on Bills............................ 8
Total Number of Bills Passed the House............................ 18
Total Number of Bills Passed the House in Another Measure......... 11
Total Number of Bills Enacted into Law............................ 4
Total Number of Bills Enacted as Part of Another Measure.......... 7
Total Number of Bills Vetoed...................................... 1
V. COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES STATISTICS
Total Number of Bills and Resolutions Referred.................... 437
Total Number of Hearings.......................................... 14
Field......................................................... 2
Joint with Other Committees................................... 2
Total Number of Full Committee Mark-Up Sessions................... 21
Total Number of Bills Ordered Reported from Full Committee........ 26
Total Number of Filed Reports on Bills............................ 25
Total Number of Bills Passed the House............................ 37
Total Number of Bills Passed the House in Another Measure......... 20
Total Number of Bills Enacted into Law............................ 10
Total Number of Bills Enacted as Part of Another Measure.......... 18
Total Number of Bills Vetoed...................................... 2
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS
I. Summary of Activities
A. ERISA TARGETED HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM
In the 104th Congress, the Committee initiated the
legislative debate leading to the enactment of incremental
health insurance reform.
On February 14, 1995, the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee
Relations set the stage for ERISA-based insurance reform by
holding hearings on ``The ERISA Title I Framework: A 20-year
Success Story.'' On February 21, 1995, the ERISA Targeted
Health Insurance Reform Act of 1995 (H.R.995) was introduced by
Representatives Fawell, Goodling, Armey, and other Members.
This bipartisan legislation was cosponsored by 51 Members of
the House of Representatives. Legislation addressing reforms in
the individual health insurance market, the Targeted Individual
Health Insurance Reform Act of 1995, was introduced on the same
date. During Subcommittee hearings on the two bills, held on
March 10 and March 28, 1995, witnesses testified that the
preservation and expansion of ERISA and its preemption
framework would be a critical step on the road to significant
health insurance reform.
On March 6, 1996, the Committee adopted an amendment in the
nature of a substitute to H.R. 995 offered by Chairman Fawell
and ordered the bill reported. The ERISA Targeted Health
Insurance Reform Act of 1996 was reported to the House on March
25, 1996 (H. Rept. 104-498). The Committee bill served as the
genesis for the ERISA-based reforms contained in the Health
Coverage Availability and Affordability Act, H.R. 3103, as
passed by the House on March 28, 1996.
The provisions in the conference report (H. Rept. 104-736)
relating to portability and health insurance accessibility are
structured in a manner similar to those in the House passed
bill and the ERISA Targeted Health Insurance Reform legislation
originally reported by the Committee. Under the newly enacted
portability protections, employees can no longer be told that
their plan will not cover them because of a preexisting medical
condition when they are continuously insured. The employees of
small employers can no longer be told that their health
coverage has been canceled by an insurer because of a costly
illness. Small employers can no longer be told by insurers that
health insurance is not available to their employees because of
the risks of their jobs or their previous claims experience. In
sum, employees will no longer have to fear, when they leave
their job or take a new job, that they or their family members
will lose access to health insurance coverage because of a
preexisting medical condition.
Of particular note is the ERISA-based structure of the
final legislation (the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996, P.L. 104-191). The key components
of the group-to-group portability provisions--restrictions on
preexisting-condition exclusions, special enrollment rules and
nondiscrimination on the basis of an individual's health
status--are made applicable to ``group health plans'' and to
``health insurance issuers offering group health insurance
coverage in connection with a group health plan'' under a new
Part 7 of ERISA Title I. Identical provisions under sections
2701 and 2702 of the Public Health Service Act are made
applicable only to group health plans which are non-federal
governmental plans and to health insurance issuers in
connection with group health plans (but not to group health
plans covered under ERISA, even if such a group health plan is
a multiple employer welfare arrangement). Identical provisions
under sections 9801-9803 of the Internal Revenue Code are made
applicable only to group health plans (including church plans)
and not to health insurance issuers. Section 104 of the Act
ensures coordination by means of an interagency memorandum of
understanding (MOU) which requires that regulations, rulings
and interpretations issued by the different agencies on the
same subject matter must be administered so as to have the same
effect at all times. Likewise a coordinated enforcement
strategy must be maintained under the MOU to prevent
duplicative enforcement and to assign priorities in
enforcement. For example, the Committee expects that any
information relating to a potential violation of the Act by a
health insurance issuer which comes to the attention of the
Department of Labor or the Internal Revenue Service will be
transmitted to the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) for a determination under section 2722(a)(2) as to
whether a state has failed to substantially enforce the
particular provision of the Act (amending the Public Health
Service Act) as it relates to the health insurance issuer. Only
if the state involved has failed to substantially enforce the
federal law with respect to the provision violated will the
Secretary of HHS invoke the federal enforcement provisions
under section 2722(b).
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act,
under section 704 of ERISA and section 2723 of the Public
Health Service Act, also reinforces the broad preemption
framework with respect to employee benefit plans (i.e. group
health plans) which characterizes ERISA section 514. In
particular, the new provisions of section 701 of ERISA and
section 2701 of the Public Health Service Act as they relate to
health insurance coverage offered by a health insurance issuer
in connection with a group health plan supersede any provision
of state law relating to the preexisting condition rules under
such sections, except to the extent that such state law
specifically provides for one of the exceptions listed under
paragraph (b)(2). Therefore, in general, the above referenced
portability/preexisting condition rules and certification/
notice requirements will apply on a uniform basis to all group
health plans and related health insurance coverage, if any. The
only exception to this general rule occurs with respect to
health insurance coverage offered by a health insurance issuer
in a state which specifically provides for one or more of the
exceptions listed in paragraph (b)(2).
The Committee also takes note that by omitting from the
conference report the ERISA small business pooling provisions
included under Subtitle C of the House bill, this Congress has
missed an important opportunity to extend more affordable
coverage to the millions of employees and their dependents who
today do not have health insurance coverage. These provisions
would have built upon the ERISA cornerstone of this nation's
employee benefits law to allow employers, particularly small
employers, to achieve economies of scale by joining together to
form either self-insured or fully-insured health plans. The
number of uninsured workers will be a continual reminder that
this mechanism for expanded health coverage is needed and
should be included at the earliest possible time. Nonetheless,
the enacted legislation does preserve the ERISA preemption
cornerstone which has fueled the marketplace dynamics that have
recently reduced health insurance cost inflation, at least in
the large group market. A principle also reflected in new ERISA
section 704 is the need for national uniformity regarding the
procedures and reporting required to make the portability
mechanism work for all employees who participate in employee
health benefit plans covered under the legislation.
B. PENSION PROTECTION
The Subcommittee held several hearings focusing on
protecting workers pensions. On June 15, 1995, the Subcommittee
held a hearing on H.R. 1594, the ``Pension Protection Act of
1995.'' The purpose of H.R. 1594 was to prevent the Department
of Labor, guardian of fiduciary standards for the nation's
pension plans, or any other federal agency from promoting so-
called economically targeted investments (ETIs) to employee
benefit plans. ETIs are investments in an array of so-called
``socially beneficial'' projects such as public housing
construction or infrastructure building, rather than in those
selected exclusively to provide a financially sound return for
pensioners as required by federal pension law. The Department
of Labor is promoting such politically targeted investments
through a $1.2 million taxpayer-funded clearinghouse and
through issuance of an Interpretive Bulletin--even though it
acknowledges that these investments ``require a longer time to
generate significant investment returns,'' are ``less liquid,''
and require more expertise to evaluate. H.R. 1594 would abolish
the clearinghouse and repeal the Interpretive Bulletin. On July
13, 1995, the Subcommittee approved H.R. 1594; the full
committee favorably reported the bill on July 20, 1995; and on
September 12, 1995, the House passed it by a vote of 239-179.
In June 1996, the Subcommittee held two oversight hearings
on promoting the expansion of pensions for American workers.
The hearings focused on how after more than two decades since
the passage of the landmark Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA), Congress must reduce any barriers hindering its
goal of securing adequate retirement income for American
workers and their families. The hearings addressed the ways in
which the Committee, in future legislation, can increase access
to pension plans by further simplifying regulations which today
make it difficult for many employers to offer pensions. The
Subcommittee is committed to beginning the groundwork for
pension expansion and simplification now, before baby boomers
overwhelm our retirement system.
C. TEAM ACT
One of the issues upon which the Subcommittee on Employer-
Employee Relations placed its highest priority was H.R. 743,
the Teamwork for Employees and Managers (TEAM) Act, which would
clarify the legality of a wide range of employee involvement
programs. The Subcommittee was motivated by the recognition
that the workplace of today is simply not the same as the
workplace that was prevalent in the America of the 1930's when
the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) was enacted. Employers
and employees in nonunion workplaces who want to work together
to confront and address the numerous issues that arise in any
employment relationship (e.g. safety and health concerns,
efficiency/productivity issues, scheduling, benefits, etc.)
were finding their cooperation thwarted by broad
interpretations of labor laws a half century old. The
Subcommittee believes that federal labor law should facilitate
the desire of employees and employers to create mechanisms in
the workplace--be they formal or informal, permanent or
temporary--to foster an exchange of concerns, problems,
suggestions and solutions to make the employment experience
more satisfying and productive for all parties.
The Subcommittee heard from many employers and business
owners that they have either suspended or decided against
initiating any employer-employee involvement or cooperative
management programs because of a concern about how the National
Labor Relations Board and the courts would judge the legality
of such programs. Employees who have enjoyed having a voice in
how their workplaces are operated and structured have also
indicated that they are concerned that legal questions
surrounding the legality of employer-employee cooperation will
force them back into a situation where, in their words, they
will have to ``check their brains at the door.''
This nation's labor law must be relevant to the employer-
employee relationships of the twenty-first century. The
Subcommittee felt strongly that the amendments to the NLRA
contemplated by the TEAM Act were crucial and that the bill
would pose no threat to the well-protected right of employees
to select representatives of their own choosing to act as their
exclusive bargaining agent. Even with the changes to the NLRA
proposed in H.R. 743, an employee involvement structure may not
engage in collective bargaining nor may it act as the exclusive
representative of employees. The prohibitions in the NLRA
outlawing interference with employees' attempts to form a union
and preventing employers from avoiding bargaining obligations
by directly dealing with employees remain unaffected by the
TEAM Act.
Although H.R. 743 was unfortunately vetoed by President
Clinton after passage by both the House and the Senate, the
Subcommittee remains committed to the legislation as it makes
clear that employers can work together with their employees to
confront and solve the myriad problems and issues that arise in
a workplace. To allow otherwise would stand in the way of
cutting edge human resource management that offers business the
opportunity to make an investment in the human potential of the
American workforce that will yield untold dividends for this
nation.
D. ADEA PUBLIC SAFETY EXEMPTION
Another issue to which the Subcommittee on Employer-
Employee Relations devoted early attention was the restoration
of the public safety exemption to the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). Chairman Fawell introduced
legislation (H.R. 849) to restore this exemption, which expired
on December 31, 1993. The legislation would allow police and
fire departments and correctional institutions to utilize
maximum hiring ages and early retirement ages as an element of
their overall personnel policies. The restoration of the public
safety exemption was sought by management and labor alike in
the public safety arena.
Although the Subcommittee believes strongly that the use of
an age requirement as a qualification for employment is rarely
justified, the public safety arena presents one of the very
limited exceptions where the need to perform at peak physical
and mental conditioning is critical and the natural effects of
the aging process cannot be discounted. Police and firefighters
have the safety and well-being of not only their fellow
officers, but the general public as well, in their hands, and
the Subcommittee simply was not prepared to tolerate the risk
presented by the possibility of sudden incapacitation or slowed
reflexes.
The Subcommittee held a hearing on the need for the public
safety exemption under the ADEA, and the testimony of
firefighting and law enforcement organizations and local
government was compelling. A representative of the
International Association of Firefighters testified that ``the
most important reason that public safety occupations are an
exception to the general rule against age-based employment
criteria is simply that human lives are at stake.'' Both the
firefighters and police officers presented persuasive testimony
that state and local governments must ensure a physically fit
and fully qualified workforce and that there are no adequate
physical tests available to enable them to do so without the
use of age criteria.
H.R. 849, which enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support,
was one of the first pieces of legislation considered by the
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities and, by
voice vote, passed the House of Representatives on March 28,
1995. The Subcommittee was gratified that the Congress took the
critical steps necessary to ensure that H.R. 849 was finally
enacted by including the legislation in the omnibus
appropriations bill, P.L. 104-208, signed by President Clinton.
The public safety exemption under the ADEA drew the proper
balance between protecting the employment rights of older
Americans and protecting the safety needs of all Americans, and
gave police and fire departments the necessary flexibility to
establish personnel policies that are suited to the demands of
public safety occupations.
E. THE WORKER RIGHT TO KNOW ACT
The Worker Right to Know Act, H.R. 3580, was introduced by
Chairman Harris Fawell on June 5, 1996. The Act implements and
strengthens workers' rights, created by the U.S. Supreme
Court's 1988 decision in Beck v. Communications Workers of
America, to object to the payment of union dues or fees for any
activities not related to collective bargaining, contract
administration or grievance adjustment necessary to performing
the duties of exclusive representation.
The Act would require unions to disclose to its memberships
exactly where funds were going, and amends the Labor-Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act to give all employees paying dues
to a union greater access to the union's financial records.
In light of the serious undermining of workers' right to
know, and have a say in, where their hard-earned dollars are
sent, the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations held two
hearings in Washington, DC, in April and June 1996, to examine
in detail the effects of this unfairness and to fashion an
effective response which would uphold the rights of workers.
The Subcommittee's two hearings on H.R. 3580--held April 18
and June 19, 1996 (both hearings contained in Serial No. 104-
66)--demonstrated a strong need for legislation protecting
workers' rights. Eighteen witnesses' testimony, including eight
current or former union members, created a compelling case for
the appropriateness of simply asking workers for their
permission before spending their money.
Witnesses' direct experience confirmed that rank-and-file
union members are having their dues taken by union leadership
and spent on political activities with which many members
disagree. Testimony showed that most workers are unaware that
they have a right to a refund on that portion of dues used for
purposes unrelated to legitimate union functions, and that
those who are aware of this right--and seek to exercise it--
often face union delay and intimidation, and may become
outcasts within the union when attempting to secure rebates.
f. reform of the national labor relations act
The Subcommittee initiated a broad review of the National
Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and of the National Labor Relations
Board, the federal agency charged with administering and
enforcing the NLRA. Upon completion of its review, the
Subcommittee held hearings and considered several bills
intended to address problems or areas of concern the
Subcommittee had identified with respect to the both the NLRA
and the NLRB.
The Subcommittee reviewed the union organizing tactic known
as ``salting'', in which union organizers seek or gain
employment with a non-union employer for the sole purpose of
coercing that employer into signing a collective bargaining
agreement. Hearings were held on union ``salting'' in
conjunction with the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations on July 12, 1995 and October 31, 1995. On March
29, 1996, Chairman Fawell introduced legislation to address
abusive ``salting'' practices, H.R. 3211, ``The Truth in
Employment Act of 1996.'' The Committee on Economic and
Educational Opportunities held a joint field hearing on the
bill with the Committee on Small Business on April 12, 1996 in
Overland Park, Kansas.
The Subcommittee also reviewed the NLRB's increased use of
10(j) injunctions--referring to that provision of the NLRA that
allows the NLRB, upon issuance of an Unfair Labor Practice
complaint, to seek injunctive relief in the U.S. District
Courts. A hearing on the Board's use of 10(j) injunctions was
held on September 27, 1995; and, on March 14, 1996, Chairman
Fawell introduced H.R. 3091, the Injunctive Relief Amendments
Act of 1996.
Finally, the Subcommittee reviewed the current state of the
law regarding access to an employers' property within the
context of the National Labor Relations Act. On October 18,
1995, Chairman Hoekstra introduced legislation, H.R. 2497, to
address questions regarding a union's access to an employer's
property, vis-a-vis the access granted to a charitable, civic
or religious organization. The Committee on Economic and
Educational Opportunities held a hearing on the bill on
February 7, 1996.
g. group preferences/affirmative action/equal opportunity
The Subcommittee conducted an important review of the role
of affirmative action in the employment context. In particular,
hearings focused on examining the Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs (OFCCP), which administers mandatory
written affirmative action programs for federal contractors,
and the Executive Order it enforces. The Subcommittee held the
following hearings: oversight hearings on affirmative action in
employment on March 24 and May 2, 1995; oversight hearing on
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) administrative
reforms on May 23, 1995; oversight hearing on Executive Order
11246 and its implementing regulations, as administered by the
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) on June
21, 1995; and legislative hearing on H.R. 2128, ``The Equal
Opportunity Act of 1995,'' and the role of the OFCCP on
February 29, 1996.
II. Meetings Held by the Subcommittee
104th Congress, First Session
January 24, 1995--Oversight hearing on the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, public safety exemption.
February 8, 1995--Oversight hearing on removing impediments
to employee participation/electromation.
February 14, 1995--Oversight hearing on health care reform.
February 16, 1995--Mark-up of H.R. 849, ``Age
Discrimination in Employment Amendments of 1995''.
March 7, 1995--Mark-up of H.R. 743, ``Teamwork for
Employees and Employers Managers Act''.
March 10, 1995--Hearing on H.R. 995, ERISA Targeted Health
Insurance Reform Act of 1995.
March 24, 1995--Oversight hearing on affirmative action in
employment.
March 28, 1995--Hearing on H.R. 995, ERISA Targeted Health
Insurance Reform Act of 1995.
Hearing on H.R. 996, Targeted Individual Health Insurance
Reform Act of 1995.
May 2, 1995--Oversight hearing on affirmative action in
employment.
May 23, 1995--Oversight hearing on the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) administrative reforms/case
processing.
June 15, 1995--Hearing on H.R. 1594, Economically Targeted
Investments (ETI's).
June 21, 1995--Oversight hearing on Executive Order 11246
and its implementing regulations, as administered by the Office
of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP).
July 13, 1995--Mark-up of H.R. 1594, to place restrictions
on the promotion by the Department of Labor and other Federal
agencies and instrumentalities of economically targeted
investments in connection with employee benefit plans.
September 27, 1995--Oversight hearing on National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB) reform.
104th Congress, Second Session
February 29, 1996--Hearing on H.R. 2128, the Equal
Opportunity Act of 1995; and the Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs (OFCCP).
April 18, 1996--Oversight hearing on mandatory assessment
of union dues.
June 6, 1996--Oversight hearings on promoting expansion of
pensions for American workers.
June 19, 1996--Hearing on H.R. 3580, Worker Right to Know
Act.
June 26, 1996--Oversight hearings on promoting expansion of
pensions for American workers.
III. Legislative Activities
a. legislation enacted into law
P.L. 104-191 (H.R. 3103), ``Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act of 1996''.
b. legislation enacted as part of another measure
H.R. 849, ``Age Discrimination in Employment Amendments'',
was included in H.R. 3610 and enacted as P.L. 104-208.
H.R. 995, ``ERISA Targeted Health Insurance Reform Act of
1995''. Provisions of the bill were included in H.R. 3103 and
enacted as P.L. 104-191.
H.R. 3160, ``Health Coverage Availability and Affordability
Act of 1996''. Provisions of the bill were included in H.R.
3103 and enacted as P.L. 104-191.
c. legislation passed the house
H.R. 849, ``Age Discrimination in Employment Amendments of
1995''.
H.R. 743, ``Teamwork for Employers and Managers Act of
1995''.
H.R. 1594, to place restrictions on the promotion by the
Department of Labor and other Federal agencies and
instrumentalities of economically targeted investments in
connection with employee benefit plans.
H.R. 2092, ``Private Security Officer Quality Assurance Act
of 1995''.
H.R. 3103, ``Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996''.
d. legislation passed the house in another measure
H.R. 995, ``ERISA Targeted Health Insurance Reform Act of
1995''. Provisions of the bill passed the House in H.R. 3103.
H.R. 3160, ``Health Coverage Availability and Affordability
Act of 1996''. Provisions of the bill passed the House in H.R.
3103.
e. legislation with filed reports
H.R. 743 (H.Rept. 104-248), ``Teamwork for Employers and
Managers Act of 1995''.
H.R. 995 (H.Rept. 104-498, Pt. 1), ``ERISA Targeted Health
Insurance Reform Act of 1995''.
H.R. 1594 (H.Rept. 104-238), to place restrictions on the
promotion by the Departments of Labor and other Federal
agencies and instrumentalities of economically targeted
investments in connection with employee benefit plans.
f. legislation ordered reported from full committee
H.R. 849, ``Age Discrimination in Employment Amendments of
1995''.
H.R. 743, ``Teamwork for Employers and Managers Act of
1995''.
H.R. 995, ``ERISA Targeted Health Insurance Reform Act of
1995''.
H.R. 1594, to place restrictions on the promotion by the
Department of Labor and other Federal agencies and
instrumentalities of economically targeted investments in
connection with employee benefit plans.
g. legislation reported from subcommittee
H.R. 743, ``Teamwork for Employers and Managers Act of
1995''.
H.R. 849, ``Age Discrimination in Employment Amendments of
1995''.
H.R. 1594, to place restrictions on the promotion by the
Department of Labor and other Federal agencies and
instrumentalities of economically targeted investments in
connection with employee benefit plans.
h. legislation discharged from subcommittee
H.R. 995, ERISA Targeted Health Insurance Reform Act of
1995''.
i. legislation vetoed
H.R. 743, ``Teamwork for Employees and Managers Act of
1995''.
IV. Subcommittee Statistics
Total Number of Bills and Resolutions Referred to Subcommittee.... 130
Total Number of Bills Discharged from Subcommittee................ 1
Total Number of Hearings.......................................... 17
Field......................................................... 0
Joint with Other Committees................................... 0
Total Number of Subcommittee Mark-Up Sessions..................... 3
Total Number of Bills Reported from Subcommittee.................. 3
Total Number of Bills Ordered Reported from Full Committee........ 4
Total Number of Filed Reports on Bills............................ 3
Total Number of Bills Passed the House............................ 5
Total Number of Bills Passed the House in Another Measure......... 2
Total Number of Bills Enacted into Law............................ 1
Total Number of Bills Enacted as Part of Another Measure.......... 3
Total Number of Bills Vetoed...................................... 1
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS
I. Summary of Activities
a. the fair labor standards act of 1938
During the 104th Congress, the Subcommittee on Workforce
Protections undertook a series of oversight hearings on the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The overall theme of the six
hearings was whether the Act, along with its many underlying
regulations, needs to be updated to reflect the realities of
the modern workforce and to clarify areas where the law
reflects uncertainty.
The Working Families Flexibility Act
The Subcommittee on Workforce Protections held an oversight
hearing on June 8, 1995 on amending the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) to provide private sector employers with the option
of allowing employees to choose to take compensatory time off
in lieu of overtime pay, an option which federal, state, and
local governments have had for many years. Witnesses testified
at the hearing about the need for an amendment to the FLSA to
provide covered or ``non-exempt'' employees with more
flexibility regarding compensation and scheduling issues.
The Fair Labor Standards Act requires generally that hours
of work by ``non-exempt'' employees beyond 40 hours in a seven-
day period must be compensated at a rate of one-and-a-half
times the employee's regular rate of pay. Narrow exceptions to
the so-called ``40-hour work week'' are permitted, under
section 7 of the FLSA, for employees in a variety of specific
types and places of employment whose circumstances have led
Congress, over the years, to enact specific provisions
regarding maximum hours of work for those types of employment.
In addition, the overtime pay requirement does not apply to
``exempt'' employees--``executive, administrative, or
professional'' employees.
Payment to private sector employees for overtime hours
worked must be in the form of cash wages. This is contrary to
the overtime pay requirement under the FLSA for public sector
employees. Public agencies may provide compensatory time in
lieu of overtime compensation, so long as the employee or his
or her collective bargaining representative has agreed to this
arrangement and the compensatory time off is given at a rate of
not less than one and one-half hours for each overtime hour
worked by the employee.
On September 21, 1995, Representative Cass Ballenger
introduced H.R. 2391, the Working Families Flexibility Act. The
purpose of the legislation is to amend the FLSA to provide
compensatory time for all employees. A hearing was held by the
Subcommittee on H.R. 2391 on November 1, 1995. Witnesses
testified about the changes in the work force and the workplace
since the 1930s, when the private sector provisions regarding
overtime pay were written. There is ample support for
concluding that working men and women today want the option of
being able to earn compensatory time off rather than cash wages
for overtime hours worked. A survey conducted in September,
1995 by Penn Schoen Associates, Inc. found that 75 percent of
those surveyed favored a proposal to give workers the option of
time off in lieu of overtime wages.
The Subcommittee on Workforce Protections favorably
reported the Working Families Flexibility Act, as amended, on
December 13, 1995. The Committee on Economic and Educational
Opportunities favorably reported the bill, as amended, on June
26, 1996. The amendments to the bill include a number of
provisions for employees in the private sector which are not
provided in current law for public sector employees. The
additional provisions for private sector employees have been
added in response to concerns which have been raised about the
possible misuses of allowing employers and employees in the
private sector to decide on compensatory time in lieu of cash
compensation.
Under H.R. 2391, an employer and employee must reach an
expressed mutual agreement or understanding that overtime
compensation will be in the form of compensatory time. If
either party does not so agree, then the overtime pay must be
in the form of cash compensation. The agreement to use
compensatory time must be affirmed in a written or otherwise
verifiable statement prior to the performance of the work for
which the compensatory time off would be given. Any agreement
must be entered into ``knowingly and voluntarily'' by the
employee.
Private sector employers are prohibited under the bill from
directly or indirectly intimidating, threatening, coercing or
attempting to coerce any employee into taking or not taking
compensatory time in lieu of cash wages. There are appropriate
penalties in the bill for employers who violate the anti-
coercion provision. An employee who has accrued compensatory
time may generally use the time whenever he or she so desires.
The employer may deny the employee's request only if the
employee's use of the compensatory time would ``unduly
disrupt'' the operations of the employer. This same standard--
which is used under the Family and Medical Leave Act and under
the public sector use of compensatory time--is to balance the
employee's right to make use of compensatory time that has been
earned and the employer's reasonable needs in operating the
business. Finally, the bill provides that an employee may
accrue no more than 240 hours of compensatory time. Any accrued
compensatory time must be cashed out a minimum of once per year
or within 30 days of an employee's written request for a cash
out.
The Working Families Flexibility Act passed the House, as
amended, on July 30, 1996, but was not acted on by the Senate
prior to the adjournment of the 104th Congress.
Court reporters
On July 11, 1995, the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections
heard testimony on H.R. 1225, the Court Reporter Fair Labor
Amendments of 1995. The bill was introduced on March 14, 1995
by Representative Harris W. Fawell to amend the Fair Labor
Standards Act to exempt employees who perform certain court
reporting duties from the overtime time requirements applicable
to certain public agencies.
H.R. 1225 was introduced in response to a ruling by the
Department of Labor which held that court reporters are acting
as employees of the court when they are preparing transcripts
for attorneys, litigants and other parties, even though the
Internal Revenue Service has determined that they are
independent contractors in this instance. While preparing such
transcripts, court reporters typically have an agreement with
their employer to charge a per page rate for preparing
transcripts for outside parties. In this capacity, they are
acting as independent contractors, not as employees of the
court.
In order to comply with the Department of Labor's ruling,
many courts were considering changes and some had already made
changes to their payment structures for official court
reporters. H.R. 1225, which was supported by court reporters as
well as state and local government employers, restores the
payment system of court reporters to what both court reporters
and state and local courts believed the system was prior to the
ruling by the Department of Labor.
H.R. 1225 clarifies that time spent by official court
reporters preparing transcripts for a per page fee during ``off
hours'' shall not be considered to be ``hours worked'' for the
purposes of section 7(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. In
particular, the legislation provides that where court reporters
are being compensated on a per page basis for transcription
work performed on the court reporter's own time, the time spent
on that work need not be counted as hours worked for purposes
of determining the employer's overtime obligation to that
reporter.
The Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities
reported H.R. 1225, as amended, on July 20, 1995. The bill was
then passed, as amended, by the House on the Corrections
Calendar on August 1, 1995, and by the Senate on August 5,
1995. The measure was enacted on September 6, 1995, and became
Public Law 104-26.
Travel time in company vehicles
On March 14, 1995, Representative Harris W. Fawell
introduced H.R. 1227, to amend the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947
to address the issue of the compensability of time spent by
employees commuting in company vehicles. The bill was
introduced in response to an opinion letter issued by the
Department of Labor on August 5, 1994, which ruled that the
time spent by an employee traveling from home to the first work
assignment, or returning home from the last assignment, was
similar to that of traveling between jobs during the day and
therefore represented a principal activity, which must be
compensated. No compensation would be required in cases where
employees used their own personal vehicles.
The Department of Labor's opinion letter interfered with
customary practice in many industries, where employees commute
directly from home to the job site and use of the employer's
vehicle for such commuting is a matter of convenience for both
the employee and the employer. In response to Congressional
inquiries, the Department of Labor issued a follow-up letter on
October 19, 1994, suspending enforcement of the opinion letter.
A revised opinion letter modifying the Department of Labor's
position was issued on April 3, 1995. The letter held that such
travel time need not be compensated if: (1) use of the vehicle
is strictly voluntary and not a condition of employment; (2)
the vehicle which is used for commuting is the type of vehicle
which would normally be used for commuting; (3) the employee
incurs no costs for driving or parking the employer's vehicle;
and (4) the work sites are within the normal commuting area of
the employer's establishment.
On November 1, 1995, the Subcommittee held a hearing on
H.R. 1227. Witnesses testified about the need for a legislative
clarification of the intention of the Portal-to-Portal Act with
regard to employee use of employer-provided vehicles for
commuting. H.R. 1227 was favorably reported by the Subcommittee
on Workforce Protections on December 13, 1995. The Committee on
Economic and Educational Opportunities favorably reported H.R.
1227 on March 21, 1996.
The bill, as amended, provides clarification regarding the
use of an employer-provided vehicle for travel from an
employee's home to the first work location at the start of the
workday and from the last work location to the employee's home
at the end of the workday. Such travel is not considered to be
part of the employee's principal activities and therefore, the
time spent in such commuting is not required to be compensated
under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The limitation applies only
if the use of the vehicle is within the normal commuting area
for the employer's business or establishment and the use of the
employer's vehicle is subject to an agreement between the
employer and the employee or employee's representative. This
clarification regarding an employee's ``principal activity or
activities'' applies as well to activities performed by an
employee which are incidental to the use of the employer-
provided vehicle for travel by the employee at the beginning
and end of the workday. The bill does not apply to time spent
traveling between job sites during the course of the workday.
H.R. 1227 was passed by the House on May 22, 1996 and was
subsequently included as part of H.R. 3448, the Small Business
Job Protection Act. The Senate passed H.R. 3448 on July 9,
1996, and it was enacted into law (P.L. 104-188) on August 20,
1996.
Use of paper balers by teenage workers
On July 11, 1996, the Subcommittee heard testimony on H.R.
1114, introduced by Representative Thomas W. Ewing which would
authorize minors who are under the child labor provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act to load materials into balers and
compactors that meet appropriate American National Standards
Institute design safety standards. The Department of Labor's
regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act prohibit minors
under the age of 18 from loading or operating certain power-
driven paper products machines, including paper balers.
Witnesses testified that while there have been significant
changes in technology which have resulted in improved safety
mechanisms on balers, the 30-year old regulation had not been
updated by the Department of Labor to reflect these changes.
The Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities
reported H.R. 1114, as amended, on July 20, 1995. The bill was
considered and passed by the House, as amended, on October 24,
1995 on the Corrections Calendar. The House-passed bill would
permit 16 and 17 year olds to load (but not operate or unload)
paper balers and compactors that (1) can not operate while
being loaded, and (2) meet the most current safety standards of
the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), a private
standards-setting organization. In addition, it required that
the machinery have an on-off switch, that the key be maintained
in the custody of an adult employee, and that a notice be
posted on the machine indicating that 16 and 17 year old
employees are allowed to load but not operate or unload the
machine.
The Senate passed H.R. 1114, as amended, on July 16, 1996.
The final bill, which was enacted on August 6, 1996, and became
P.L. 104-174, provides, in addition to incorporating the
protections of the House bill, that the machinery must meet
either the current ANSI standard, or a future ANSI standard so
long as the Secretary of Labor certifies that the standard is
at least as protective of the safety of minors as the current
ANSI standards. In addition, for two years following enactment,
employers will be required to report any injuries and
fatalities which result from contact by an employee under age
18 during the loading, operating, or unloading of the machine.
Houseparents legislation
On November 1, 1995, the Subcommittee on Workforce
Protections held a hearing on H.R. 2531, which was introduced
on October 25, 1995, by Representative Tim Hutchinson. The
purpose of the bill is to exempt certain qualified houseparents
from the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Many private, nonprofit, charitable institutions which
serve neglected or abused children employ individuals as
houseparents or substitute parents, on a twenty-four hour
basis. The institutions maintain a family-based environment by
providing continuous, consistent care to children from homes
broken by divorce, desertion, death, and separation. Staff who
function as houseparents live, eat, sleep and enjoy recreation
in the home with the children under their care. However, as the
result of the application of the Fair Labor Standards Act to
houseparents, a number of these institutions have been forced
to change the method in which they provide care to the children
who reside in the homes.
Section 13(b)(24) of the Fair Labor Standards Act excludes
from overtime certain employees of institutions which operate
residential schools serving children and youth. In reality,
there are few individuals, if any, who are able to qualify for
the current exemption. It fails to recognize the types of
individuals who are employed as houseparents. There are many
single individuals who serve ably and are unable to qualify for
the exemption because they are not married. An individual who
serves as the substitute parent for children who are from
broken homes where both parents are living, but no longer
together, would not qualify for the exemption because only
orphans or children with at least one parent deceased will meet
the current law requirement. Finally, many houseparents do not
qualify because they are employed by institutions which only
provide residential care, not educational programs, for abused
or neglected children.
Witnesses who testified before the Subcommittee hearing
emphasized that the success of these programs for abused or
neglected children directly depends upon the institution's
ability to provide a family-based home environment with
continuous, consistent care by substitute parents. It is
apparent that many of these institutions face tremendous
uncertainty as to whether or not staff functioning as
houseparents are covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Furthermore, the absence of clearly-defined guidelines from the
Department of Labor concerning the treatment of houseparents
under the Fair Labor Standards Act has resulted in confusion
and costly litigation for some private, nonprofit institutions
providing care for children. The present treatment of
houseparents under the FLSA is an impediment to charitable,
nonprofit organizations which attempt to provide necessary
services using a family-based model.
On December 13, 1995, the Subcommittee on Workforce
Protections favorably reported H.R. 2531, as amended. The bill,
which was reported as amended by the Committee on Economic and
Educational Opportunities on March 21, 1996, would exempt
individuals employed by private, nonprofit institutions as
houseparents from the minimum wage and overtime provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act provided that the individual (1)
receives room and board, without cost, (2) is compensated on an
annual basis of not less than $8,000 and (3) resides in the
home with the children for a minimum of 72 hours. The bill was
not considered by the House of Representatives.
B. BOXING SAFETY
On June 11, 1996, the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections
held a joint hearing on H.R. 1186, the Professional Boxing
Safety Act of 1996, with the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee
on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials. The hearing
focused on issues of fraud, health and safety in the sport of
boxing.
Most State athletic commissions have differing policies
with regard to boxing. In one State, boxers, promoters, and
managers may be required to meet certain standards, while
another State may have no requirements or safety and health
standards at all. H.R. 1186, which was introduced by
Representative Michael G. Oxley establishes minimum health and
safety requirements for professional boxers and will improve
the ability of State authorized boxing commissions to properly
oversee professional boxing matches. H.R. 1186 was jointly
referred to the Committee on Economic and Educational
Opportunities and the Committee on Commerce. The bill was
favorably reported by the Committee on Commerce on September
18, 1996. The Committee on Economic and Educational
Opportunities did not further consider the bill, which was
supported by Members on both sides of the aisle, in order to
expedite the legislative process. H.R. 4167, identical to H.R.
1186 as reported by the Committee on Commerce was introduced by
Representative Pat Williams of Montana and was considered and
passed by the House in lieu of H.R. 1186. The Senate passed
H.R. 4167 on September 27, 1996, and the measure was enacted on
October 9, 1996, as P.L. 104-272.
c. osha
The Occupational Safety and Health Act has been amended
only once in the 25 years since it was enacted; that one
amendment was part of a budget bill to raise revenues for the
federal government through increased penalties. Despite the
lack of amendment, however, OSHA has been one of the most
criticized federal agencies. The criticisms have come not only
from employers and employees, but from policy analysts who have
studied OSHA's impact and found it to have imposed considerable
cost with comparatively little benefit to worker safety and
health.
Reasons for OSHA's lack of cost effectiveness and examples
of excessively burdensome regulations were explored during a
hearing conducted by the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations shortly after the 104th Congress convened, on
February 16, 1995. They were further explored in a general
oversight hearing held by the Subcommittee on Workforce
Protections, on March 8, 1995, at which both present and past
OSHA administrators gave their views of why OSHA has not been
more cost effective in promoting workplace safety and health.
Legislation to reform Occupational Safety and Health Act
(H.R. 1834) through reforms of the regulatory process, greater
balance between consultative and enforcement efforts by OSHA
personnel, changes to the enforcement process to provide more
effective targeting at serious health and safety problems, and
consolidation of federal agencies involved in workplace safety
and health efforts was considered during several hearings
conducted by the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.
Despite claims by the Clinton Administration that it too
recognized that OSHA needed to be ``reinvented'' because ``the
rules are too rigid and the inspections are often adversarial''
(Vice President Gore, speaking to the White House Conference on
Small Business), the President nonetheless declared his
intention to veto H.R. 1834. Seeking the point of consensus on
reforms to OSHA, Chairman Ballenger introduced a second bill,
H.R. 3234, which incorporated several initiatives moving in the
same direction of reform which had been previously announced or
endorsed by the Clinton Administration. H.R. 3234 was approved
by the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections on April 17, 1996.
Unfortunately, the Clinton Administration continued to oppose
all legislative efforts to reform OSHA, and so the Committee
chose not to further confront the Administration with OSHA
reform legislation in this Congress. The Committee expects to
continue its efforts to make OSHA more cost effective in the
105th Congress.
d. adams fruit
In 1990 the United States Supreme Court, in the case Adams
Fruit Company v. Barrett, 494 U.S. 638, held that monetary
claims for injuries under the federal Migrant and Seasonal
Agricultural Workers Protection Act (MSPA) could be granted
even if the injuries were also covered and had been compensated
under a state workers' compensation law. The Supreme Court thus
exempted workers covered by MSPA from the general rule that
state workers compensation is the exclusive remedy for injuries
suffered in the course of employment to which workers
compensation applies.
Efforts had been made, on a bipartisan basis, since 1990,
to reverse the effect of the Supreme Court's decision.
Legislation attached to a fiscal year 1993 appropriations bill
temporarily reversed the decision and stated that where workers
compensation applied, it was the exclusive remedy for injuries
suffered in the course of employment. That legislation expired,
however, in July, 1993, leaving agricultural employers exposed
to liability under MSPA even after workers compensation was
paid, and leaving agricultural employees exposed to the
likelihood that their employers in many states would simply
drop workers compensation coverage altogether.
The Subcommittee on Workforce Protections held a hearing on
the issues raised by the Adams Fruit decision on May 25, 1995.
On June 22, 1995, H.R. 1715, introduced by Chairman Goodling,
was approved by the Full Committee on Economic and Educational
Opportunities.
As introduced and approved by the Committee, H.R. 1715 only
addressed the exclusive remedy of workers compensation for
agricultural workers covered by MSPA. Subsequent to Committee
approval, interested parties and Committee staff engaged in
extensive negotiations to address several issues related to the
reversal of the Adams Fruit decision, and to reach consensus on
legislation. Those negotiations were ultimately successful and
on October 17, 1995, the House of Representatives unanimously
approved a substitute version of H.R. 1715. The identical
legislation was approved by the Senate, and became Public Law
104-49.
e. the davis-bacon act
The Davis-Bacon Act, passed in 1931, applies to contractors
who work on federal construction projects. It requires
contractors to pay certain ``prevailing wages'' to the various
classes of laborers and mechanics working under federal
contracts valued at $2,000 or more. Davis-Bacon requirements
have been also been extended to 60 other programs involving
varying degrees of federal funding. These programs range from
low-income housing to Head Start to veterans nursing home care.
The Davis-Bacon Act has remained essentially unchanged since
its passage 65 years ago.
The Subcommittee on Workforce Protection conducted a
general oversight hearing on the Davis-Bacon Act on February
15, 1995. Witnesses testified that the Act limits free market
competition, causes the taxpayers to pay more for federal
construction projects, denies job opportunities, particularly
to minority and entry-level workers, causes paperwork and
recordkeeping burdens and is unnecessary in light of the
numerous laws that already protect the wages and working
conditions of all workers. On March 2, 1995 the Subcommittee on
Workforce Protections approved H.R. 500, legislation to repeal
the Davis-Bacon Act.
In January 1995, a number of Oklahoma citizens and public
officials contacted the Oklahoma Department of Labor regarding
newly published Davis-Bacon wage rates. A comparison of the old
and new wage rates showed increases as much as 162 percent.
These increases are passed along to taxpayers in the form of
higher costs on public construction projects like schools and
highways. Because of the increase, the Oklahoma Department of
Labor began an inquiry in the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage
survey process. An investigative report, prepared by the
Oklahoma Department of Labor entitled ``Investigative Report:
The Davis-Bacon Act, and Fraudulent Wage Data'' was submitted
to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and to Congress in July
1995. The initial report by the Oklahoma Department of Labor
identified three cases of apparent fraudulent activities.
In keeping with its oversight responsibilities for the U.S.
Department of Labor, the Committee on Economic and Educational
Opportunities has been investigating these charges of
wrongdoing in the Davis-Bacon program. On January 18, 1996 the
Subcommittees on Oversight and Investigation and Workforce
Protections conducted a joint hearing in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma to review the allegations of fraud and abuse in the
Davis-Bacon Act. The Subcommittees heard from several witnesses
including Oklahoma Department of Labor officials and
contractors. The Oklahoma Department of Labor testified that
their investigation had uncovered over 100 cases of apparent
fraudulent activity.
In addition, the Committee requested the General Accounting
Office (GAO) to review the prevailing wage process to determine
if it was susceptible to fraudulent activities. The Committee
also asked the Department of Labor's Inspector General (the
internal, independent watchdog over DOL) to investigate the
allegations of fraud in Oklahoma and to audit several other
states to determine if fraudulent activities are a systemic,
nationwide problem.
The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation and the
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections convened another joint
hearing on June 20, 1996, to hear the results of the GAO review
of the U.S. Department of Labor procedures under the Davis-
Bacon Act. The GAO report released on May 31, 1996, raised
questions about the U.S. Department of Labor's administration
of the Davis-Bacon Act and stated that ``Labor's wage
determination procedures contain weaknesses that could permit
the use of fraudulent or inaccurate data for setting prevailing
wage rates.'' The Subcommittees also heard testimony from
Oklahoma Department of Labor officials regarding a recently
released report entitled ``A Report to the U.S. Congress:
Regarding Specific Concerns About the U.S. Department of Labor
Discovered During the Oklahoma Inquiry into Possible Davis-
Bacon Fraud.'' The report based on an extensive review of
public documents reveals ``that officials within the DOL may
have played an active role in the wrongful inflation of federal
prevailing wage rates at the expense of taxpayers and for the
benefit of favored officials within organized labor.''
The FBI in Oklahoma City is investigating allegations of
fraud in the Davis-Bacon Act as well as the role of U.S. DOL
officials. A grand jury has also been impaneled. Indictments
are likely ``imminent.''
f. the service contract act
The Service Contract Act, officially called the O'Hara
McNamara Services Act covers all contracts with the federal
government in excess of $2,500 whose primary purpose is to
provide services to the government. At the time of enactment,
employees typically covered by the Service Contract Act were
semi-skilled or unskilled workers performing manual work or
craft work. Types of service contracts covered by the Act were
varied and included laundry and dry-cleaning, custodial and
janitorial, guard service, packing and crafting, food service,
and miscellaneous housekeeping services.
The Subcommittee on Workforce Protections conducted a
general oversight hearing on the Service Contract Act on
February 15, 1995. Witnesses testified that throughout its
history the Act has been plagued with problems. In particular,
the Service Contract Act denies small businesses the
opportunity to compete for federal contracts, costs taxpayers
billions in inflated wages, and has significant administrative
problems. On March 2, 1995 the Subcommittee on Workforce
Protections approved H.R. 246, legislation to repeal the
Service Contract Act. On September 28, 1995, the Committee on
Economic and Educational Opportunities reported to the
Committee on the Budget a provision to repeal the Service
Contract Act, which was included in H.R. 2491, the Balanced
Budget Act of 1995, which passed the House on October 26, 1995.
The provision was ultimately dropped from the final budget
package.
II. Meetings Held by the Subcommittee
February 15, 1995--Oversight hearing on the Davis-Bacon Act
and the Service Contract Act.
March 2, 1995--Mark-up of H.R. 245, to repeal the Service
Contract Act of 1965.
Mark-up of H.R. 500, to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act.
March 8, 1995--Oversight hearing on the Occupational Safety
and Health Act (OSHA).
March 30, 1995--Oversight hearing on the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).
May 25, 1995--Oversight hearing on Adams Fruit Co., Inc. v.
Barrett.
June 8, 1995--Oversight hearing on the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA).
June 20, 1995--Hearing on H.R. 1834, Safety and Health
Improvement and Regulatory Reform Act of 1995.
June 28, 1995--Hearing on H.R. 1834, Safety and Health
Improvement and Regulatory Act of 1995.
July 11, 1995--Hearing on H.R. 1114, to authorize minors
under the Fair Labor Standards Act to load paper bailers and
compactors.
Hearing on H.R. 1225, to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act
pertaining to Court Reporters.
Hearing on H.R. 1783, to require a regulation change under
the occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 pertaining to
firefighters.
July 27, 1995--Hearing on H.R. 1834, Safety and Health
Improvement and Regulatory Reform Act of 1995.
August 24, 1995--Oversight field hearing on the
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), held in Pickens,
South Carolina.
October 25, 1995--Oversight hearing on the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).
November 1, 1995--Oversight hearing on the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).
December 13, 1995--Mark-up of H.R. 1227, to amend the
Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 relating the payment of wages to
employees who use employer owned vehicles.
Mark-up of H.R. 2391, ``Working Families Flexibility Act of
1996''.
Mark-up of H.R. 2531, to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 to clarify the exemption for houseparents from the
minimum wage and maximum hours requirements of that Act, and
for other purposes.
104th Congress, Second Session
January 18, 1996--Joint oversight field hearing on the
Davis-Bacon Act/Oklahoma Fraud Allegations, held with the
Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
April 17, 1996--Mark-up of H.R. 3234, ``Small Business OSHA
Relief Act of 1996''.
June 11, 1996--Joint hearing on H.R. 1186, the Professional
Boxing Act, held with the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
Hazardous Materials of the Committee on Commerce.
June 20, 1996--Joint oversight hearing on Davis Bacon / GAO
Report, held with the Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations.
September 12, 1996--Oversight hearing on the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).
III. Legislative Activities
A. Legislation Enacted into Law
P.L. 104-26 (H.R. 1225), ``Court Reporter Fair Labor
Amendments of 1995''.
P.L. 104-174 (H.R. 1114), to authorize minors who are under
the child labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 and who are under 18 years of age to load materials into
balers and compactors that meet appropriate American National
Standards Institute design safety standards.
B. Legislation Enacted as Part of Another Measure
H.R. 1227, ``Employee Commuting Flexibility Act'', was
included in H.R. 3448 and enacted as P.L. 104-188.
C. Legislation Passed the House
H.R. 1114, to authorize minors who are under the child
labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
who are under 18 years of age to load materials into balers and
compactors that meet appropriate American National Standards
Institute design safety standards.
H.R. 1225, ``Court Reporter Fair Labor Amendments of
1995''.
H.R. 1227, to amend the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947
relating to the payment of wages to employees who use employer
owned vehicles.
H.R. 2391, ``Working Families Flexibility Act of 1996''.
D. Legislation Passed the House in Another Measure
H.R. 1227, to amend the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947
relating to the payment of wages to employees who use employer
owned vehicles, passed the House in H.R. 3448.
E. Legislation with Filed Reports
H.R. 1114 (H.Rept. 104-278), to authorize minors who are
under the child labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 and who are under 18 years of age to load materials
into balers and compactors that meet appropriate American
National Standards Institute design safety standards.
H.R. 1225 (H.Rept. 104-219), ``Court Reporter Fair Labor
Amendments of 1995''.
H.R. 1227 (H.Rept. 104-585), to amend the Portal-to-Portal
Act of 1947 relating to the payment of wages to employees who
use employer owned vehicles.
H.R. 2391 (H.Rept. 104-670), ``Working Families Flexibility
Act of 1996''.
H.R. 2531 (H.Rept. 104-592), to amend the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 to clarify the exemption for houseparents
from the minimum wage and maximum hours requirements of that
Act, and for other purposes.
F. Legislation Ordered Reported from Full Committee
H.R. 1114, to authorize minors who are under the child
labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
who are under 18 years of age to load materials into balers and
compactors that meet appropriate American National Standards
Institute design safety standards.
H.R. 1225, ``Court Reporter Fair Labor Amendments of
1995''.
H.R. 1227, to amend the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947
relating to the payment of wages to employees who use employer
owned vehicles.
H.R. 2391, ``Working Families Flexibility Act of 1996''.
G. Legislation Reported from Subcommittee
H.R. 246, to repeal the Service Contract Act of 1965.
H.R. 500, to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act.
H.R. 1227, to amend the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947
relating to the payment of wages to employees who use employer
owned vehicles.
H.R. 2391, ``Working Families Flexibility Act of 1996''.
H.R. 2531, to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to
clarify the exemption for houseparents from the minimum wage
and maximum hours requirements of that Act, and for other
purposes.
H.R. 3234, ``Small Business OSHA Relief Act of 1996''.
h. legislation discharged from subcommittee
H.R. 1114, to authorize minors who are under the child
labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
who are under 18 years of age to load materials into balers and
compactors that meet appropriate American National Standards
Institute design safety standards.
H.R. 1225, ``Court Reporter Fair Labor Amendments of
1995''.
I. Legislation Vetoed
None of the legislation referred to Subcommittee was
vetoed.
IV. Subcommittee Statistics
Total Number of Bills and Resolutions Referred to Subcommittee.... 82
Total Number of Bills Discharged from Subcommittee................ 2
Total Number of Subcommittee Hearings............................. 18
Field......................................................... 2
Joint with Other Committees................................... 1
Total Number of Subcommittee Mark-Up Sessions..................... 3
Total Number of Bills Reported from Subcommittee.................. 6
Total Number of Bills Ordered Reported from Full Committee........ 4
Total Number of Filed Reports on Bills............................ 5
Total Number of Bills Passed the House............................ 4
Total Number of Bills Passed the House in Another Measure......... 1
Total Number of Bills Enacted into Law............................ 2
Total Number of Bills Enacted as Part of Another Measure.......... 1
Total Number of Bills Vetoed...................................... 0
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, YOUTH AND FAMILIES
I. Summary of Activities
A. EDUCATING AMERICA'S YOUTH
School reform
On June 21, 1995 and July 13, 1995, the Subcommittee on
Early Childhood, Youth and Families held hearings on education
reform as it pertains to public elementary and secondary
schools. The hearings provided a beginning framework for
gathering information on the quality of public education and
answering the following two questions: (1) What needs to be
done to reform and transform public education so it meets the
needs of families, students, and employees of the 21st
century?; and (2) What should be the Federal government's role,
if any, in education reform?
At the hearing on June 21, 1995, Committee Members, Dave
Weldon and Frank Riggs, primary sponsors of H.R. 1640, the
``Low Income School Choice Demonstration Act of 1995,''
presented strong arguments for the establishment of a
nationwide public and private school choice demonstration
program to test the effectiveness of school choice as a means
of improving K-12 education. Testimony was also received on how
public charter schools have provided an increasingly popular
and effective model for education reform in various States.
The hearing on July 13, 1995 examined various education
reforms at the State and local levels including raising
academic standards (i.e. importance of academic standards to
private businesses), private management of public schools,
district-wide public school choice, and various other local
reforms.
On July 30, 1996, the Subcommittee held a joint hearing
with the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Ways and Means
Committee on H.R. 3467, ``Saving Our Children: The American
Community Renewal Act of 1996.'' H.R. 3467, provided a
comprehensive approach for the renewal of poor urban and rural
communities. This bill was introduced on May 16, 1996 by
Representative Jim Talent, a Member of the Economic and
Educational Opportunities Committee, and Representative J.C.
Watts. Through the use of free enterprise, tax incentives, and
public and private school choice, the legislation provides a
solid framework for community renewal. Title IV of the
legislation would have established a low income scholarship
program giving low income parents the opportunity to choose the
best schools, public, private, or parochial, for their
children. No further action was taken on this measure during
the 104th Congress.
Further discussion on school reform can be found in the
``Full Committee'' and ``Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations'' sections of this report.
H.R. 3268, The IDEA Improvement Act of 1996
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement
(IDEA) Act, H.R. 3268, was introduced by Subcommittee Chairman
Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham on April 18, 1996. The bill amended
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act based on
information gathered in four hearings. The first hearing, held
jointly with the Senate Subcommittee on Disability Policy on
May 9, 1995 was followed by two Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Youth and Families hearings on June 20 and 27, 1995.
A fourth hearing on a draft version of the bill was held on
March 7, 1996.
The amendments to the Act made significant changes to the
permanently authorized Part B program for school-aged children,
the Part H infant and toddler program, and the 14 funded-
discretionary programs. The bill included a change in the
funding formula, which phased in a formula based on each
State's child population and child poverty statistics over a
ten-year period. The bill reduced inappropriate attorney's fees
and limited reimbursement by public schools for the cost of
private school tuition where a child was unilaterally placed in
such schools by the child's parents.
The bill reduced unnecessary paperwork by streamlining
Individualized Education Programs, State and local application
procedures, and evaluation requirements. Its provisions
permitted the removal of dangerous children from classrooms,
regardless of their disability status, and permitted the equal
disciplinary treatment of disabled children where the child's
actions are unrelated to their disability.
H.R. 3268 reorganized the 14 funded discretionary programs
under the Act into four broad programs: a national research and
improvement program; a national professional development
program focused on low-incidence disabilities, model training
programs, and training of special education higher-educators; a
State program primarily focused on professional development;
and a parent training center program. The Act also repealed the
never funded and expired Part I program.
On April 24, 1996, the bill was considered and approved by
the Subcommittee by voice vote. On May 30, 1996, the bill was
considered and approved by the Economic and Educational
Opportunities Committee by a vote of 32-5, and was passed by
the House of Representatives under Suspension of the Rules on
June 10, 1996, by voice vote. While the Senate Labor and Human
Resources Committee did unanimously consider and approve a bill
amending IDEA, S. 1578, on March 21, 1996, neither that
legislation nor H.R. 3268 was considered by the Senate during
the 104th Congress.
English as the official language of the federal government
On October 18, 1995 and November 1, 1995 Subcommittee
Chairman Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham held hearings on the general
topic of English as the Common Language, receiving testimony
from Members of Congress and other interested parties.
H.R. 123, the ``Bill Emerson English Language Empowerment
Act of 1996'' was introduced by the late Representative Bill
Emerson and approved by the Committee on Economic and
Educational Opportunities on July 23, 1996, by a vote of 19 to
17 and passed the House of Representatives on August 1, 1996,
by a vote of 259-169. The Senate failed to take any action on
this legislation.
The legislation declares English the official language of
the federal government, and requires the government to conduct
most of its official business in English. It builds upon our
nation's historic tradition and is designed to unify Americans
from all walks of life behind one shared language. It replaces
a balkanized national language policy, devoid of any uniform
principles, with a common sense, common language policy. The
bill has no effect upon the use of foreign languages in homes,
neighborhoods, churches, or private businesses. Affirming
English as the official language of the government ensures that
all Americans can count on one language for government actions,
policies and documents. It reinforces other national policies,
such as the requirement that one be able to read, write and
speak English before becoming a United States citizen.
Impact aid
H.R. 3269, the Impact Aid Technical Amendments Act of 1996,
was introduced by Chairman Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham on April
18, 1996. H.R. 3269, as introduced, amended the Impact Aid
program to provide for the following: inclusion of a hold
harmless provision with respect to amounts for payments
relating to the federal acquisition of real property; inclusion
of provisions to address funding concerns arising from
renovation of military housing; establishment of categories of
eligibility of consolidated school districts for payments
relating to the federal acquisition of real property; and
clarification that each of Hawaii's seven administrative school
districts are to be considered as separate local educational
agencies.
In each of these instances, the Committee felt it necessary
to take action to ensure that school districts would not be
adversely affected by actions beyond their control--either on
the part of Congress or of other government agencies.
The Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families
reported H.R. 3269, by voice vote, on April 24, 1996. On May 1,
1996, the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities
reported the bill favorably by voice vote.
H.R. 3269 passed the House of Representatives on May 7,
1996, by voice vote and was forwarded to the Senate for
consideration. H.R. 3269, as amended, passed the Senate on
August 2, 1996, by voice vote.
The House of Representatives agreed to the Senate
amendments by voice vote on September 4, 1996, and the bill was
signed into law on September 16, 1996. It is now Public Law
104-195.
The Subcommittee also held several days of hearings on the
Impact Aid Program. On July 19, 1995, the Subcommittee held a
hearing on military-connected children and Impact Aid in
Washington, D.C. On July 8, 1996, the Subcommittee held an
additional hearing to explore the impact of decisions
concerning housing for military personnel and their families on
the Impact Aid program.
Library and museum services
On May 2, 1995, the Subcommittee held a hearing on Adult
Education, Literacy, and Library Services. Library Services and
Technology provisions were incorporated into H.R. 1617, the
Consolidated and Reformed Education, Employment, and
Rehabilitation Systems Act (CAREERS), which was introduced by
Representative Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon on May 11, 1995. On
May, 16, 1995, the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and
Families approved H.R. 1617 as amended by voice vote. On May
17, 1995, the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education, Training
and Life-Long Learning approved H.R. 1617 as amended by voice
vote and ordered it reported to the Committee on Economic and
Educational Opportunities. On May 24, 1995, H.R. 1617 as
amended was ordered reported by the Committee on Economic and
Educational Opportunities by a vote of 29-5. On September 19,
1995, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1617 by a vote
of 345-79, and a Conference Report on the Workforce and Career
Development Act was filed on July 25, 1996. However, the
Conference Agreement was not considered by either the House of
Representatives or the Senate during the final days of the
104th Congress.
On May 3, 1995, Representative Bill Goodling along with
Representative Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham as a cosponsor,
introduced H.R. 1557, the Arts, Humanities, and Museum Services
Amendments of 1995 which among other things would have
authorized continued funding of the Institute of Museum
Services (IMS) for three years. On May 10, 1995, the Committee
on Economic and Educational Opportunities considered and
approved H.R. 1557 as amended by a vote of 19 yeas, 2 nays, and
18 voting present.
The Museum and Library Services and Technology Act was
included in H.R. 3610, the Omnibus fiscal year 1997
Appropriations bill and signed into law by the President on
September 30, 1996. It is now Public Law 104-208.
The Museum and Library Services Act of 1996 moves the
federal responsibility for library programs into a new
Institute of Museum and Library Services and streamlines and
consolidates several federal library programs into one program
focused on helping all libraries acquire cutting-edge
technologies and better serving those with special needs.
Library Services Technology Consolidation grants will
provide for improved library services to our citizens through
the use of new information technologies. They will help bring
America's libraries; public, elementary and secondary, and
academic into the 21st century. These reforms will help
libraries form electronic linkages with one another to better
share resources, and will give all Americans access to new and
better sources of information, such as the Internet.
America is undergoing a technological revolution including
a tremendous proliferation in new sources of information. This
trend will not only continue, but is certain to accelerate. It
is clear that America's libraries will need to take advantage
of these new technologies if they are to continue to ensure
that all Americans have equal access to information.
b. strengthening america's families
Adult education
The Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families
held two days of hearings on adult education and family
literacy issues. The first hearing was held on April 25, 1995,
in San Marcos, California. The second hearing was held May 2,
1995, in Washington, D.C.
Testimony received by the Subcommittee was supportive of
adult education and family literacy programs and the variety of
services provided to adults in need of literacy services.
Individual witnesses expressed support for program
consolidation and more flexibility at the State and local level
to design and operate programs.
As a result, legislation creating an adult education and
family literacy block grant was incorporated into H.R. 1617,
the Consolidated and Reformed Education, Employment, and
Rehabilitation Systems (CAREERS) Act. This block grant gave
States broad flexibility in funding literacy programs for
adults in need of services. All caps and set asides were
removed and States were given broad flexibility to meet the
literacy needs of their citizens. The legislation also limited
the amount of funds which could be held at the State level,
driving the bulk of the funds to local providers to provide
actual program services. In addition, the block grant
specifically stated, for the first time, that funds could be
used for family literacy programs to work with adults and their
children at the same time. The family literacy concept had been
shown not only to raise the literacy level of adults, but to
help ensure the educational success of their children as well.
Finally, the block grant retained the requirement that States
continue to provide a matching amount of funds for adult
education in order to receive federal funds.
The adult education and family literacy portions of H.R.
1617 were reported by the Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Youth and Families on May 16, 1995, by voice vote.
Further discussion on H.R. 1617 can be found in the
``Subcommittee on Postsecondary, Education, Training and Life-
Long Learning'' section of this report.
Juvenile justice
H.R. 3876, the Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency
Prevention Act, was introduced by Chairman Randy ``Duke''
Cunningham on July 23, 1996.
Prior to the introduction of this legislation, the
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families held four
hearings for the purpose of considering and reviewing the
authorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act.
The first of the four hearings was held on March 28, 1996
in Washington, D.C. This was a general hearing and witnesses
discussed changes to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Program as well as the Runaway and Homeless Youth
Program. The second hearing, which focused on youth violence
and gangs, was held in Washington, D.C. on April 30, 1996. The
third hearing, which focused on prevention programs, was held
in Washington, D.C. on May 8, 1996. The fourth hearing was held
in San Diego, California on May 13, 1996, and focused on local
efforts to address problems of juvenile delinquency.
Based on these hearings and concern over the growing number
of violent juvenile crimes, the Committee determined that there
was a great need to modify the existing law to focus on holding
juveniles accountable for their actions, as well as helping to
prevent juvenile crime. Testimony also indicated there was a
need to consolidate existing programs and to generally
streamline program requirements and burdensome State mandates
to provide greater flexibility to States to address juvenile
crime. H.R. 3876, as introduced, reflected these changes.
On July 25, 1996, the Subcommittee on Early Childhood Youth
and Families reported H.R. 3876, ``The Juvenile Crime Control
and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1996'', as amended by voice
vote. On August 1, and August 2, 1996 the Committee on Economic
and Educational Opportunities assembled to consider H.R. 3876.
H.R. 3876 was favorably reported by the Committee on August 2,
1996, by a recorded vote of 23-2.
H.R. 2570, The Older Americans Act Amendments of 1996
During the 104th Congress, the Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Youth and Families proposed significant reforms to
the delivery of services under the Older Americans Act.
The Older Americans Act of 1965 created a federal program
specifically designed to meet the service needs of older
persons. Although older persons may receive services under
other federal programs, the Act is the major vehicle for the
organization and delivery of supportive and nutrition services
to this group.
Through a series of five hearings held on June 13, 1995,
June 26, 1995, June 28, 1995, July 10, 1995, and November 2,
1995, it became quite evident that after 30 years of federal
requirements being added to this legislation, the Older
Americans Act of 1965 was in need of comprehensive reform.
While there was no question regarding the benefits of these
programs, the federal requirements had simply become too
burdensome and were impeding delivery of vital services to the
elderly. In recent years, State and area aging agencies have
noted the increasing array of legislative requirements imposed
on them without corresponding increases in funding.
On November 1, 1995, Subcommittee Chairman Randy ``Duke''
Cunningham introduced H.R. 2570, The Older Americans Act
Amendments of 1995. The bill improves services to seniors by
providing better quality services; by driving more funds
directly to local communities and, in turn, directly to
seniors; by giving local providers the flexibility to design
programs most needed by the elderly population in their own
communities; and, by helping seniors live fuller more active
lives.
H.R. 2570 was approved by the Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Youth and Families on November 16, 1995, by voice
vote and by the Committee on Economic and Educational
Opportunities on March 14, 1996 by a vote of 19-16. The Senate
reported a bill amending the Older Americans Act, S. 1643, on
May 8, 1996 by a vote of 9 to 7. No further action occurred on
this legislation during the 104th Congress.
Reform of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA)
On January 31, 1995, the Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Youth and Families held a hearing on the status of the child
protection system in this country. It was clear from this
hearing and other research by this Committee that the current
system had failed in two significant ways--it had unnecessarily
intruded in the family life of millions of Americans wrongfully
accused of child abuse or neglect and too often failed in
protecting those children truly at risk.
At the heart of this failure was a maze of federal programs
which focused too much on federal micro-management of the
States and provided too little flexibility at the State and
local level. It was clear that, rather than squandering federal
resources in dozens of directions at once, with one hand not
knowing what the other was doing, the federal effort in child
protection should be concentrated, focused, and unified.
Based on these findings, this Committee worked with the
Ways and Means Committee (which also has jurisdiction over
certain child protection programs including the foster care and
adoption assistance entitlement programs) to bring multiple
sources of funding together in one block grant, giving States
and localities flexibility in administering the funds, and
placing a premium on uniform data collection and evaluation in
order to greatly enhance and improve the federal role in child
protection.
Provisions for such a block grant were originally part of
H.R. 999, the Welfare Reform Consolidation Act of 1995,
reported out of the Committee on Economic and Educational
Opportunities on February 23, 1995. H.R. 999 was eventually
merged with H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility Act, sent to
the President on December 29, 1995, and subsequently vetoed. A
modified version of the child protection block grant was also
included as part of Budget Reconciliation for fiscal year 1997,
H.R. 3734, the Welfare and Medicaid Act of 1996, as reported
from the Committee on June 16, 1996. This Title was later
dropped during the conference committee negotiations with the
Senate, due to the Senate's ``Byrd rule'' limitations.
In anticipation of these provisions being dropped from the
welfare reform legislation, the Senate passed (by unanimous
consent) S. 919 on July 18, 1996, to authorize and amend the
existing CAPTA program. This legislation also included a host
of amendments to the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
(CAPTA) as well as program consolidation provisions which to a
certain degree reflected many of the initiatives begun as part
of the welfare reform legislation.
Because a significant portion of S. 919 had been considered
by the Committee in both hearings held by the Committee and
during the separate markups of the welfare legislation, the
House substitute was taken up directly at the desk and passed
by unanimous consent on September 27, 1996 and signed into law
(Public Law 104-235) on October 3, 1996.
Further description of the Committee's activities related
to welfare reform are described under the ``Full Committee
Activities'' section of this report.
Child care
The Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families
held a hearing on January 31, 1995 and a joint hearing with the
Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources on February 3,
1995 to consider consolidation of child care programs within
the context of welfare reform.
It was clear from these hearings and from other research by
the Committee that too many federal child care programs
currently exist with inconsistent and uncoordinated eligibility
rules and other requirements. This fragmented system caused
children and families to experience disruption in their day
care arrangements as they attempted to move from welfare to
work.
Knowing the importance of child care in helping families
move from welfare to work, the Committee was dedicated to
assisting States in developing the most efficient and effective
way to use federal funds to assist low income families. Based
on findings, the Committee worked with the Ways and Means
Committee (which had jurisdiction over AFDC related child care
programs) to bring multiple sources of funding together under
the existing Child Care and Development Block Grant.
Provisions for the child care block grant were originally
part of H.R. 999, the Welfare Reform Consolidation Act of 1995
and were marked up in the Committee on Economic and Educational
Opportunities on February 22 and 23, 1995. H.R. 999 was
eventually merged with H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility Act.
The funding structure for the child care provisions was
substantially modified to include a combination of mandatory
and discretionary funding in the House and Senate conference
before it was sent to the President on December 29, 1995, and
subsequently vetoed.
The Child Care and Development Block Grant provisions were
included in the submission to the Budget Committee for the
Budget Resolution for fiscal year 1997 and were subsequently
incorporated into H.R. 3734, the Welfare and Medicaid Reform
Act of 1996. H.R. 3734 was signed into law (Public Law 104-193)
on August 22, 1996.
Further description of the Committee's activities related
to welfare reform are described under the ``Full Committee
Activities'' section.
Drug use
On September 26, 1996, the Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Youth and Families and the Subcommittee on National Security,
International Affairs and Criminal Justice of the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight held a joint hearing on the
Epidemic of Teenage Drug Use.
During this hearing, the Subcommittees learned a great deal
about private initiatives utilized by various Members of
Congress who either established or supported existing community
anti-drug coalitions. The first witness of the hearing,
Congressman Rob Portman cited the success of Miami's
comprehensive community anti-drug coalition that cut usage in
Miami to half that of the national average. What the successful
programs do, he continued, is mobilize ``parents, businesses,
religious leaders, students, law enforcement, the media and
others to fashion a comprehensive long-term strategy to prevent
and treat substance abuse one person at a time.''
There was also a discussion at the hearing regarding what
message we should be sending as a society. ``In my view,''
Congressman Portman said, ``Nancy Reagan's `Just Say No'
campaign was not just about a slogan; it was about a national
movement that energized the war on drugs, mobilized and
organized people all across America, and gave the drug issue
media attention.''
The second witness was Judge Robert Bonner, the former
Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Agency. Judge Bonner
noted that it was not a mere coincidence that during the last
four years there has been an extreme rise in teenage drug use.
Indeed Judge Bonner explained that there has been a dramatic
rise in teenage drug use because ``there has been a nearly
total absence of Presidential leadership on this issue.'' Judge
Bonner expressed great concern because our country ``cannot
have an effective drug control policy when the President
himself does not make this a serious issue, when he jokes about
it and, even worse, when the President himself is the butt of
jokes because of remarks he has made about his own involvement
with drugs.''
The Subcommittees heard testimony that the problem has to
be addressed by parents and schools at the local level, but
that those groups need the support of the federal government.
II. Meetings Held by the Subcommittee
104th Congress, First Session
January 31, 1995--Oversight hearing on the Contract with
America: child welfare and child care.
February 3, 1995--Joint oversight hearing on child welfare
and child care, held with the Subcommittee on Human Resources
of the Committee on Ways and Means.
April 25, 1995--Oversight field hearing on adult education,
held in San Marcos, California.
May 2, 1995--Oversight hearing on adult education.
May 9, 1995--Joint oversight hearing on the 20th
Anniversary of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA), held with the Senate Subcommittee on Disability Policy
of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
May 16, 1995--Mark-up of H.R. 1617, ``Workforce and Career
Development Act of 1996''.
June 13, 1995--Oversight hearing on the Older Americans
Act.
June 20, 1995--Oversight hearing on the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
June 21, 1995--Oversight hearing on education reform.
June 26, 1995--Oversight field hearing on the Older
Americans Act, held in York, Pennsylvania.
June 27, 1995--Oversight hearing on the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
June 28, 1995--Oversight hearing on the Older Americans
Act.
July 10, 1995--Oversight field hearing on the Older
Americans Act, held in Pontiac, Michigan.
July 13, 1995--Oversight hearing on education reform.
July 19, 1995--Oversight hearing on Military connected
children and Impact Aid.
October 18, 1995--Oversight hearing on English as the
common language.
November 1, 1995--Oversight hearing on English as the
common language.
November 2, 1995--Hearing on H.R. 2570, ``Older Americans
Amendments of 1995''.
November 9, 1995--Mark-up of H.R. 2570, ``Older Americans
Amendments of 1995''.
November 16, 1995--Mark-up of H.R. 2570, ``Older Americans
Amendments of 1995''.
104th Congress, Second Session
March 7, 1996--Oversight hearing on the staff draft of the
Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA).
March 28, 1996--Oversight hearing on the Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention Act.
April 24, 1996--Mark-up of H.R. 3268, ``IDEA Improvement
Act of 1996''.
Mark-up of H.R. 3269, ``Impact Aid Technical Amendments Act
of 1996''.
April 30, 1996--Oversight hearing on the Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention Act.
May 8, 1996--Oversight hearing on the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act.
May 13, 1996--Oversight field hearing on the Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, held in San Marco,
California.
July 8, 1996--Oversight field hearing on Impact Aid, held
in Fairfield, California.
July 25, 1996--Mark-up of H.R. 3876, ``Juvenile Crime
Control and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1996''.
July 30, 1996--Joint hearing on H.R. 3467, Saving our
Children: The American Community Renewal Act of 1996, held with
the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways
and Means.
September 19, 1996--Hearing on federally funded youth
programs and local initiatives.
September 26, 1996--Joint hearing on the epidemic of
teenage drug use, held with the Subcommittee on National
Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice of the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
III. Legislative Activities
A. Legislation Enacted into Law
P.L. 104-149 (H.R. 2066), ``Healthy Meals for Children
Act''.
P.L. 104-195 (H.R. 3269), ``Impact Aid Technical Amendments
Act of 1996''.
B. Legislation Enacted as Part of Another Measure
H.R. 3286, ``Adoption Promotion and Stability Act of
1996''. Provisions of the bill were included in H.R. 3448 and
enacted as P.L. 104-188.
H.R. 1617, ``Workforce and Career Development Act of
1996''. Provisions of the bill were included in H.R. 3610 and
enacted as P.L. 104-208.
S. 1972, ``Older Americans Indian Technical Amendments
Act'', was included in H.R. 3610 and enacted as P.L. 104-208.
C. Legislation Passed the House
H.R. 123, ``Bill Emerson English Language Empowerment Act
of 1996''.
H.R. 1617, ``Workforce and Career Development Act of
1996''.
H.R. 2066, ``Healthy Meals for Children Act''.
H.R. 3268, ``IDEA Improvement Act of 1996''.
H.R. 3269, ``Impact Aid Technical Amendments Act of 1996''.
H.R. 3286, ``Adoption Promotion and Stability Act of
1996''.
S. 1972, ``Older Americans Indian Technical Amendments
Act''.
D. Legislation Passed the House in Another Measure
H.R. 1617, ``Workforce and Career Development Act of
1996'', passed the House in S. 1972.
H.R. 2332, ``Consolidated and Reformed Education,
Employment, and Rehabilitation Systems Act'' or ``CAREERS
Act''. Provisions of the bill passed the House in H.R. 1617.
H.R. 3898, ``English Language Empowerment Act of 1996''.
Provisions of the bill passed the House in H.R. 123.
E. Legislation With Filed Reports
H.R. 123 (H. Rept. 104-723), ``Bill Emerson English
Language Empowerment Act of 1996''.
H.R. 1617 (H. Rept. 104-152), ``Workforce and Career
Development Act of 1996''.
H.R. 2066 (H. Rept. 104-561), ``Healthy Meals for Children
Act''
H.R. 2570 (H. Rept. 104-539), ``Older Americans Amendments
of 1995''.
H.R. 3268 (H. Rept. 104-614), ``IDEA Improvement Act of
1996''.
H.R. 3269 (H. Rept. 104-560), ``Impact Aid Technical
Amendments Act of 1996''.
H.R. 3876 (H. Rept. 104-783), ``Juvenile Crime Control and
Delinquency Prevention Act of 1996''.
F. Legislation Ordered Reported From Full Committee
H.R. 123, ``Bill Emerson English Language Empowerment Act
of 1996''.
H.R. 1617, ``Workforce and Career Development Act of
1996''.
H.R. 2066, ``Healthy Meals for Children Act''.
H.R. 2570, ``Older Americans Amendments of 1995''.
H.R. 3268, ``IDEA Improvement Act of 1996''.
H.R. 3269, ``Impact Aid Technical Amendments Act of 1996''.
H.R. 3876, ``Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency
Prevention Act of 1996''.
G. Legislation Reported from Subcommittee
H.R. 1617, ``Workforce and Career Development Act of
1996''.
H.R. 2570, ``Older Americans Amendments of 1995''.
H.R. 3268, ``IDEA Improvement Act of 1996''.
H.R. 3269, ``Impact Aid Technical Amendments Act of 1996''.
H.R. 3876, ``Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency
Prevention Act of 1996''.
H. Legislation Discharged from Subcommittee
H.R. 123, ``Bill Emerson English Language Empowerment Act
of 1996''.
H.R. 2066, ``Healthy Meals for Children Act.''
I. Legislation Vetoed
None of the legislation referred to Subcommittee was
vetoed.
IV. Subcommittee Statistics
Total Number of Bills and Resolutions Referred to Subcommittee.... 119
Total Number of Bills Discharged from Subcommittee................ 2
Total Number of Subcommittee Hearings............................. 26
Field Hearings................................................ 5
Joint Hearings with Other Committees.......................... 3
Total Number of Subcommittee Mark-Up Sessions..................... 5
Total Number of Bills Reported from Subcommittee.................. 5
Total Number of Bills Ordered Reported from Full Committee........ 7
Total Number of Filed Reports on Bills............................ 7
Total Number of Bills Passed the House............................ 7
Total Number of Bills Passed the House in Another Measure......... 3
Total Number of Bills Enacted into Law............................ 2
Total Number of Bills Enacted as Part of Another Measure.......... 3
Total Number of Bills Vetoed...................................... 0
SUBCOMMITTEE ON POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION, TRAINING AND LIFE-LONG
LEARNING
I. Summary of Activities
A. EMPLOYMENT AND JOB TRAINING REFORM
Workforce development reform legislation
During the 104th Congress, much of the Subcommittee on
Postsecondary Education, Training and Life-Long Learning's work
focused on reform of this nation's vast array of federal
workforce development and literacy programs. Reports from the
U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) highlighting the excessive
number of federally funded job training programs, as well as
conflicting reports on the quality of the U.S. workforce
development system, have sparked both public and Congressional
interest in systemic reform for the past several years. To
date, the GAO has identified over 150 different programs which
offer some form of career-related education, job training, or
employment assistance to youth and adults. In its studies, the
GAO found that the additional costs of administering
overlapping workforce development programs at the federal,
State, and local levels, diverts scarce resources that could be
better spent to assist individuals in preparing for and
entering into work.
Beginning in February, 1995, the Subcommittee held nine
hearings on reform of federal workforce development programs,
in addition to two hearings that were conducted by the
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families on adult
education, literacy, and library-related programs. In hearings
conducted on February 6 and 7, 1995, the Subcommittee examined
U.S. business leaders' perspectives on the education and
training needs of the U.S. workforce. The Subcommittee also
heard testimony from the U.S. Departments of Education and
Labor and the U.S. General Accounting Office during these
hearings. On March 1 and 3, 1995, the Subcommittee conducted
hearings which focused on the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and
Applied Technology Education Act and other innovative career-
related education programs. On March 7 and 16, 1995, hearings
were conducted to examine the education, training, and
employment needs of at-risk and disadvantaged youth, with a
panel of witnesses at the March 16 hearing providing testimony
on the federal Job Corps Program. On March 21, 1995, a hearing
was held that dealt with governance issues related to training
programs, with testimony from State and local officials,
service providers, and the private sector. A hearing held on
March 23, 1995, examined issues related to system
infrastructure, forecasting, and special populations. And
finally, a hearing conducted on March 29, 1995 focused on
vocational rehabilitation.
Of all of the witnesses who came before the Subcommittee to
testify on reform of the U.S. workforce development system,
everyone including representatives from the Administration,
State officials, local officials, business leaders, educators,
program providers, researchers, and organized labor, agreed
that significant program consolidation and reform of U.S.
workforce development programs is in order.
On May 11, 1995, Republican Members of the Committee on
Economic and Educational Opportunities, led by Subcommittee
Chairman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon and Chairman Bill Goodling
introduced H.R. 1617, the Consolidated and Reformed Employment,
Education and Rehabilitation Systems (CAREERS) Act. H.R. 1617
was designed to transform the confusing array of federal
workforce development and literacy programs from a collection
of fragmented and duplicative categorical programs into a
streamlined, comprehensive, high-quality, market-based, and
accountable workforce development and literacy system. This
legislation was designed to transfer responsibility for the
design and implementation of these programs out of Washington,
to States and local communities; and to better meet the
education, employment, training, and literacy needs of
Americans, and the competitiveness needs of U.S. employers.
On May 16, 1995, the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth
and Families considered and approved H.R. 1617, as amended, by
a voice vote. On May 17, 1995, the Subcommittee on
Postsecondary Education, Training and Life-Long Learning
considered and approved H.R. 1617, as amended, by voice vote,
and ordered the bill reported to the Full Committee on Economic
and Educational Opportunities.
On May 24, 1995, the Full Committee on Economic and
Educational Opportunities met to consider H.R. 1617, where the
bill was amended and favorably reported by a recorded vote of
29-5.
On September 19, 1995, the House of Representatives, in a
bipartisan vote of 345-79, overwhelmingly passed H.R. 1617. The
Senate passed the bill on October 11, 1995 by a vote of 95 to 2
and requested a conference with the House. During the 2nd
session of the 104th Congress, House and Senate conferees met
to resolve differences between H.R. 1617, and S. 143, the
Senate's ``Workforce Development Act of 1995.'' A final
conference agreement on the newly named ``Workforce and Career
Development Act'' was reached, and a Conference Report was
filed on July 25, 1997. However, the conference agreement was
not considered by either the Senate or the House of
Representatives during the final days of the 104th Congress.
The Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Program
During the 104th Congress, the Subcommittee on
Postsecondary Education, Training and Life-Long Learning helped
initiate major changes related to the work requirements as
included under welfare reform. On February 19, 1995, the
Subcommittee held a hearing on the Job Opportunities and Basic
Skills (JOBS) program. Experts from around the country
testified how under this program, the emphasis has not been
work, but instead education and training activities which too
often have been designed with little relevance to the realities
of the working world. Witnesses also described how the many
statutory restrictions under the JOBS program have greatly
hampered the ability of States to design more sensible welfare-
to-work systems which both meet their needs and allow for
easier coordination and integration with other programs.
As a result of this hearing and other discussions with
interested parties from around the country, H.R. 999, the
Welfare Reform Consolidation Act of 1995 (as reported by the
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities) included
the consolidation of the JOBS program into the larger Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant. In its place
welfare-to-work requirements were added which provide
flexibility to States to implement new and innovative
approaches at moving welfare recipients toward self-sufficiency
utilizing funds from the overall TANF block grant.
Further description of the Committee's activities related
to welfare reform, including the work requirements, are
described under the ``Full Committee Activities'' section of
this report.
B. COMMON SENSE SOLUTIONS IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Hearings on the rising cost of higher education
On April 23, 1996, the Subcommittee held an initial
overview hearing with respect to higher education. The
witnesses provided information describing the current make-up
of student bodies across the country. The testimony included
information on the age, family income level, and educational
attainment of the current student population across all sectors
of higher education. The Committee also heard testimony as to
the kinds of financial aid available to students at the State,
federal and institutional levels.
During the course of the hearings, the witnesses provided
some startling information with respect to the rising price of
a college education. Since 1980, the price of a college
education has increased at double and triple, in some years,
the rate of inflation. Statistics provided by the witnesses
showed that the price of a college education at a private
institution rose more than 90 percent over the past fifteen
years in inflation adjusted terms. The price at public
institutions rose about 100 percent for the same period.
Unfortunately, median family income only rose 5 percent in the
last fifteen years in inflation adjusted terms.
A follow-up hearing held on July 18, 1996 by the
Subcommittee took an in-depth look at the rising costs of
college. This hearing provided insight to Members as to why
there has been an ongoing rise in the price of a college
education and the effect such prices are having on students and
families struggling to pay the bill. Controlling college
tuition increases is a top priority issue to students and
parents across the country, and the Subcommittee felt it was
important to have an in-depth understanding of this topic in
preparation for the upcoming authorization of the Higher
Education Act in the 105th Congress.
H.R. 3863, The Student Debt Reduction Act of 1996
On July 22, 1996, Chairmen Bill Goodling and Howard P.
``Buck'' McKeon introduced H.R. 3863, ``The Student Debt
Reduction Act of 1996.'' H.R. 3863 amended the Higher Education
Act to allow lenders to waive or reduce the origination fees
imposed on Unsubsidized Stafford Loans by paying the fee on
behalf of the student borrower. This student benefit is
currently available only in the Subsidized Stafford Loan
program. On August 1, 1996, the Committee on Economic and
Educational Opportunities considered H.R. 3863, and favorably
reported the bill by a recorded vote of 34-0. On September 10,
1996, H.R. 3863 was considered by the House of Representatives,
and was agreed to by a recorded vote of 414 to 1 on September
11, 1996. Unfortunately, this important measure was not
considered by the Senate before the 104th Congress adjourned.
H.R. 3863 would have given students the opportunity to reap
the benefits of competition at no cost to the federal
government. Students would have found themselves with more cash
in hand which could be used for books, living expenses and
other education related costs. As the cost of a higher
education continues to rise, every extra dollar becomes more
and more important to students and their families.
This bill would have promoted increased competition among
student loan lenders, that would have resulted in lower
interest rates and lower origination fees for students. More
importantly, the students that would have been assisted by this
bill would have gained considerably, using their student loan
funds as intended to offset the costs of obtaining a college
education rather than the cost of obtaining financial aid.
H.R. 1720, The privatization of Sallie Mae and Connie Lee
On May 3, 1995, the Subcommittee on Postsecondary
Education, Training and Life-Long Learning held a hearing
jointly with the Subcommittee on National Economic Growth,
Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs of the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight on privatizing government
sponsored entities (GSEs). On May 25, 1995, Representative
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon introduced H.R. 1720, the
``Privatization Act of 1995'' to provide for the cessation of
federal sponsorship of two government sponsored enterprises,
and on June 8, 1995, the Committee on Economic and Educational
Opportunities considered and approved H.R. 1720 by a voice
vote.
On September 24, 1996, the House of Representatives passed
H.R. 1720, privatizing Student Loan Marketing Association
(Sallie Mae) and College Construction Loan Insurance
Association (Connie Lee). This privatization proposal received
overwhelming bipartisan support and was included in H.R. 3610,
the Omnibus fiscal year 1997 Appropriations bill signed into
law by the President on September 30, 1996. It is Public Law
104-208.
The Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities
recognized that the time had come to sever the federal
government's ties to the Student Loan Marketing Association
(Sallie Mae) and the College Construction Loan Insurance
Association (Connie Lee). At the same time, both companies had
expressed a desire to become private sector businesses, without
federal support and without federal restrictions. The Committee
recognized that it was time to applaud the success of these
Federally chartered companies and time to sever their federal
ties.
Sallie Mae was established in 1972 under a federal charter
authorized by Part B of Title IV of the Higher Education Act.
At that time there was a tremendous need for a secondary market
that would purchase student loans from lenders, so that lenders
would have sufficient capital for making new loans. Under its
federal charter, Sallie Mae gained certain advantages,
including the ability to raise large amounts of capital in a
cost effective way.
Today, there is an extremely competitive secondary market
for student loans, and there is ample private capital. Every
eligible student has access to student loans. Now, the federal
charter which initially helped Sallie Mae assist students is
hampering Sallie Mae's ability to put its expertise to work in
the private market to provide services outside of the student
loan arena. Clearly the time has come when it is advantageous
to both the taxpayer and Sallie Mae to allow Sallie Mae to
become a fully private company with no federal ties and no
government sponsored advantages.
Connie Lee is another example of a successful public-
private partnership which has served its purpose. Connie Lee
was created by Congress under Title VII of the Higher Education
Amendments of 1986. At that time, many institutions of higher
education faced the pressing problem of deteriorating physical
infrastructures such as buildings and physical plants. Only
wealthier schools with the best credit ratings were able to
finance facilities improvements at a reasonable cost. Connie
Lee was created to underwrite the financing of these needed
improvements for institutions with lower credit ratings,
leveraging large amounts of capital with little risk to the
taxpayer.
However, Connie Lee has never enjoyed the advantages of
most GSEs. In fact, the only government ``help'' Connie Lee
received was start-up capital, in return for which the
government received shares of stock. The law which created
Connie Lee narrowly limited the company's business activities
and clearly indicated that Connie Lee was meant to be a private
company.
Proceeds from privatization of Sallie Mae and Connie Lee
will amount to several million dollars. These funds will be
placed under the direction of the District of Columbia's
Financial Control Board to be used for much-needed school
construction and repairs to carry out the District of Columbia
School Reform Act of 1995.
The Committee believes the privatization of Sallie Mae and
Connie Lee is good common-sense government reform. It frees the
American taxpayer from subsidizing activities which will
continue and flourish without federal support. It also
demonstrates a willingness on the part of the federal
government to take a successful public-private partnership and
turn it into a completely private venture when government
support is no longer necessary. The Committee's actions on
privatization during the 104th Congress are paving the way to
the future of a smaller, less intrusive government for all
Americans.
H. Res. 470, Campus Crime Resolution
On June 6, 1996, the Subcommittee on Postsecondary
Education, Training and Life-Long Learning held a hearing on
the issue of campus crime. Witnesses testifying at this hearing
agreed that crime is a major concern of students, parents and
college administrators. During this hearing, several witnesses
called into question the Department of Education's commitment
to enforcing compliance with the Campus Security Act. In part,
their concerns were based on a quote by the Assistant Secretary
for the Office of Postsecondary Education which appeared in the
New York Times on January 7, 1996. When asked about enforcement
of the Campus Security Act, the Assistant Secretary said: ``We
aren't going to essentially establish a major monitoring effort
in this area.''
As a result of this hearing, House Resolution 470 was
introduced by Chairmen Bill Goodling and Howard P. ``Buck''
McKeon on June 27, 1996, expressing a sense of the Congress
that the Department of Education should make the monitoring of
compliance and enforcement of the Campus Security Act a
priority. The Campus Security Act requires institutions of
higher education participating in the Title IV student aid
programs to provide yearly statistics to students, faculty, and
prospective students with respect to the number of crimes
reported on campus in the following categories: murder,
forcible and non-forcible sex offenses, robbery, aggravated
assault, burglary and motor vehicle theft. In addition to the
reporting of statistics, institutions must make timely reports
to the campus community of those crimes considered to be a
threat to other students and employees in order to aid in the
prevention of further crimes on campus.
This Committee believes it is imperative that the
Department of Education actively enforce compliance with the
law. In order for students to have information vital for their
own safety on our college campuses, the Department of Education
must make certain that institutions are complying with the
Campus Security Act. Safety of students must be the number one
priority.
House Resolution 470 was favorably reported by the
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities by voice
vote on July 31, 1996. The House of Representatives passed
House Resolution 470 on September 11, 1996 by a vote of 413
yeas and 0 nays.
Streamlining grant eligibility for America's historically black
colleges and universities
Section 326 of Title III of the Higher Education Act was
established to provide grants to Historically Black Graduate
and Professional Schools that make a substantial contribution
to the legal, medical, dental, veterinary or other graduate
education opportunities for African Americans.
Eligibility for grant funds under Section 326 was
originally limited to five institutions. In 1992, the list of
eligible institutions was expanded and eleven additional
Historically Black Graduate and Professional Schools became
eligible for grant funds under this section. The first $12
million appropriated for this section is reserved for the five
original institutions who have received funding under Section
326 since its inception. These schools, like all of the other
eligible institutions, were restricted to two five-year grants.
All five schools completed their second grant in fiscal year
1996. Without this amendment to the statute, they would no
longer be eligible for future grant funds.
It is the Committee's finding that the survival of these
schools contributes to the improved status of disadvantaged
persons, as well as, all Americans. Because of the significant
contributions of these five institutions and their graduates,
it is important that they continue to be eligible for the grant
support necessary to continue providing top quality education
to their students.
H.R. 3055 was introduced by Representatives Charlie
Norwood, Bill Goodling, and William Clay on March 7, 1996. On
March 14, 1996, the Committee on Economic and Educational
Opportunities favorably reported H.R. 3055 by voice vote. On
April 23, 1996, H.R. 3055 passed the House of Representatives
by voice vote under the Corrections Day Calendar. H.R. 3055
passed the Senate by voice vote on April 24, 1996, and was
signed into law by the President on May 6, 1996. It is now
Public Law 104-141.
Increasing the autonomy of the Institute for American Indian Arts
The Institute for American Indian Arts (Institute) is a
federally created institution of higher education, authorized
under Title XV of the Higher Education Amendments of 1986. Its
primary purposes are to provide scholarly study of and
instruction in Indian arts and culture and to establish
programs which culminate in the awarding of degrees in the
various fields of Indian art and culture. Policy for the
Institute is set by a board of trustees (Board) made up of 13
voting members, appointed by the President with the advice and
consent of the Senate, and 6 non-voting members, including
Members of Congress.
Unfortunately, the Board appointment process has proven to
be overly cumbersome and the appointment of voting members to
the Board has not historically been made in a timely manner.
This has lead to a situation where Board members feel compelled
to serve additional terms in order to maintain a quorum for the
purposes of doing business, and has threatened the continuity
of the Board.
On March 7, 1996, Chairman Bill Goodling along with
Representative Dale Kildee introduced H.R. 3049. This
legislation would have made a simple correction to allow the
Board to recommend successors for Board members whose terms are
expiring and who do not wish to serve additional terms. The
President would have the prerogative to act on these
recommendations, or to appoint another qualified individual of
his choosing subject to confirmation by the Senate. However,
should the President fail to act within two months of the
expiration of the sitting member's term, and should that member
not wish to serve an additional term, then the individual
recommended for appointment by the Board would be automatically
seated.
H.R. 3049 was favorably reported by the Committee on
Economic and Educational Opportunities without amendment by
voice vote on March 14, 1996. On April 23, 1996, H.R. 3049
passed the House of Representatives by voice vote on the
Corrections Day Calendar. Unfortunately, the Senate failed to
act on this legislation prior to the end of the 104th Congress.
II. Meetings Held by the Subcommittee
104th Congress, First Session
January 19, 1995--Oversight hearing on Job Opportunities
and Basic Skills Act (JOBS).
February 6, 1995--Oversight hearing on training issues.
February 7, 1995--Oversight hearing on training issues.
March 1, 1995--Oversight hearing on training issues.
March 3, 1995--Oversight hearing on training issues.
March 7, 1995--Oversight hearing on training issues.
March 16, 1995--Oversight hearing on training issues.
March 21, 1995--Oversight hearing on training issues.
March 23, 1995--Oversight hearing on training issues.
March 29, 1995--Oversight hearing on training issues.
May 3, 1995--Joint oversight hearing on privatizing
government sponsored entities (GSE's), held with the
Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources and
Regulatory Affairs of the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight.
May 9, 1995--Oversight hearing on Title IX of the Education
Act Amendments of 1972.
May 17, 1995--Mark-up of H.R. 1617, ``Workforce and Career
Development Act of 1996''.
104th Congress, Second Session
April 23, 1996--Oversight hearing on higher education; who
plays, who pays, who goes.
May 31, 1996--Hearing on H.R. 2428, The Good Samaritan Food
Donation Act.
June 6, 1996--Hearing on H.R. 2416, Open Campus Police Logs
Act of 1995.
July 18, 1996--Oversight hearing on the rising cost of
college.
III. Legislative Activities
A. Legislation Enacted into Law
P.L. 104-210 (H.R. 2428), ``Bill Emerson Good Samaritan
Food Donation Bill''.
B. Legislation Enacted as Part of Another Measure
H.R. 1617, ``Workforce and Career Development Act''.
Provisions of the bill were included in H.R. 3610 and enacted
as P.L. 104-208.
H.R. 2396, ``Congressional Award Act Amendments of 1995'',
was included in H.R. 3610 and enacted as P.L. 104-208.
H.R. 3803, ``George Bush School of Government and Public
Service Act'', was included in H.R. 4036 and enacted as P.L.
104-319.
S. 1267, ``Congressional Award Act Amendments of 1995'',
was included in H.R. 3610 and enacted as P.L. 104-208.
C. Legislation Passed the House
H.R. 1617, ``Workforce and Career Development Act of
1996''.
H.R. 2428, to encourage the donation of food and grocery
products to nonprofit organizations for distribution to needy
individuals by giving the Model Good Samaritan Food Donation
Act the full force and effect of law.
H.R. 3803, ``George Bush School of Government and Public
Service Act''.
D. Legislation Passed the House in Another Measure
H.R. 1617, ``Workforce and Career Development Act of
1996'', passed the House in S. 1972.
H.R. 2332, ``Consolidated and Reformed Education,
Employment, and Rehabilitation Systems Act'' or ``CAREERS
Act''. Provisions of the bill passed the House in H.R. 1617.
H.R. 3803, ``George Bush School of Government and Public
Service Act'', passed the House in H.R. 4036.
E. Legislation With Filed Reports
H.R. 1617, (H.Rept. 104-152), ``Workforce and Career
Development Act of 1996''.
H.R. 2428, (H.Rept. 104-661), to encourage the donation of
food and grocery products to nonprofit organizations for
distribution to needy individuals by giving the Model Good
Samaritan Food Donation Act the full force and effect of law.
F. Legislation Ordered Reported from Full Committee
H.R. 1617, ``Workforce and Career Development Act of
1996''.
H.R. 2428, to encourage the donation of food and grocery
products to nonprofit organizations for distribution to needy
individuals by giving the Model Good Samaritan Food Donation
Act the full force and effect of law.
G. Legislation Reported from Subcommittee
H.R. 1617, ``Workforce and Career Development Act of
1996''.
H. Legislation Discharged from Subcommittee
H.R. 2428, to encourage the donation of food and grocery
products to nonprofit organizations for distribution to needy
individuals by giving the Model Good Samaritan Food Donation
Act the full force and effect of law.
I. Legislation Vetoed
None of the legislation referred to Subcommittee was
vetoed.
IV. Subcommittee Statistics
Total Number of Bills and Resolutions Referred to Subcommittee.... 77
Total Number of Bills Discharged from Subcommittee................ 1
Total Number of Subcommittee Hearings............................. 16
Field......................................................... 0
Joint with Other Committees................................... 1
Total Number of Subcommittee Mark-Up Sessions..................... 1
Total Number of Bills Reported from Subcommittee.................. 1
Total Number of Bills Ordered Reported from Full Committee........ 2
Total Number of Filed Reports on Bills............................ 2
Total Number of Bills Passed the House............................ 3
Total Number of Bills Passed the House in Another Measure......... 3
Total Number of Bills Enacted into Law............................ 1
Total Number of Bills Enacted as Part of Another Measure.......... 4
Total Number of Bills Vetoed...................................... 0
Oversight and Investigations
During the 104th Congress, the Committee on Economic and
Educational Opportunities (Committee) and more specifically its
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations (Subcommittee)
began to examine the role of the federal government and its
effectiveness in meeting Congressionally mandated goals.
Consistent with the Members' desire to balance the budget and
to ensure the appropriate use of taxpayer money, the Committee
and Subcommittee initiated intensive oversight of those
programs, agencies, and departments within the Committee's
jurisdiction.
More particularly, the Committee initiated several major
inquiries into the activities of the Departments of Labor and
Education, the Corporation for National Service, the National
Labor Relations Board, and other agencies under the Committee's
jurisdiction. These inquiries were consistent with the
Committee's Oversight Plan which was adopted by the Committee
on February 7, 1995 and submitted to the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight and the Committee on House
Oversight on February 15, 1995.
The central focus of the Committee's Oversight Plan was to
ensure that programs, agencies, departments, laws, and
regulations under the Committee's jurisdiction:
A. Focus on an appropriate federal mission;
B. Work effectively and efficiently;
C. Consistently follow Congressional intent;
D. Establish a framework for policy initiatives that
will create an environment for life long learning and
effective workplace policy; and,
E. Provide for a role for the federal government, only
where absolutely necessary.
The following sections of this Activities Report of the
Committee are filed pursuant to and comply with Rule XI, clause
1(d)(1) of the Rules of the House of Representatives and detail
the oversight activities of the Committee in accordance with
the five specific goals listed above. While several of the
oversight activities of the Committee and Subcommittee could
easily fall under more than one category, this report places
each activity according to its primary objective.
I. Summary of Activities
A. Appropriate Federal Mission
During the 104th Congress, the Subcommittee conducted a
series of evaluations, hearings, and investigations into
AmeriCorps, the Federal Direct Student Loan Program (FDSLP),
and the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). These programs
and agencies were examined in an effort to fulfill one of the
major functions of the Subcommittee, namely, whether or not
these programs and agencies serve an appropriate federal
mission. In other words, should the federal government be
paying for volunteers, involved in banking and loan activities
related to student educational loans, and funding questionable
activities under the guise of ``the arts.'' Accordingly, set
forth below is a brief analysis of the Subcommittee's
activities and related findings where appropriate.
Findings on the Corporation for National Service
Failed Audit.--When the establishment of the Corporation
for National Service (Corporation) was originally debated, the
President promised that the ``national service corporation will
be run like a big venture capital outfit, not like a
bureaucracy.'' In the same vein, Harris Wofford, Chief
Executive Officer of the Corporation, continually described his
organization in business terms--``market driven'' and ``based
in the independent sector.'' The mission statement of the
Corporation even states that it would be a ``model enterprise,
not just for government, but for many sectors of society.''
Unfortunately, in the middle of the Corporation's first
statutorily required financial audit by Arthur Anderson, LLP
and Williams, Adley & Co., LLP, they determined that, due to
weaknesses in the Corporation's financial systems, accounting
records, and management controls, it would not be possible to
perform an audit of the Corporation's fiscal year 1994
financial records. In other words, the Corporation's books were
determined to be unauditable--hardly a well-oiled ``venture
capital outfit.''
In testimony before the Subcommittee, the lead auditor
classified the Corporation's accounting and management control
weaknesses into six broad categories. According to the
auditors, the Corporation 1) lacks strong management controls,
2) lacks data integrity, 3) lacks data security, 4) failed to
segregate accounting duties, 5) lacks budgetary controls, and
6) could not prepare reliable financial statements. In all, the
auditors reported that the Corporation had 99 accounting
weaknesses, 34 of which the auditors determined to be material.
One of the witnesses from a private sector financial
institute that reviewed the Corporation's financial statements
noted that ``a third of the items [$168 million out of $343
million] on the statements are described in such a fashion that
if I went back to Wall Street and told this story, people would
laugh, but I could not laugh because I think it is too
serious.'' During this same hearing, Harris Wofford, the Chief
Executive Officer of the Corporation concurred with the
seriousness of the problem and assured the Subcommittee that he
would take every step possible to solve these problems.
In a follow-up hearing on this matter, the Corporation
again testified to the importance of fixing the problems
detailed by the auditors. Unfortunately, the Corporation now
estimates that at least one more year of its financial records
will be unauditable. A review by the Subcommittee staff (in
consultation with outside experts), of the Corporation's
progress to date and of its timelines for implementing
corrective changes pursuant to the auditor's recommendations,
makes this assurance seem overly optimistic. As noted in the
Subcommittee's hearing of March 19, 1996, lack of financial
controls makes it impossible for the auditors to determine if
the Corporation or any of its staff is misusing taxpayer money.
Funding.--As a result of the Subcommittee's systematic
review, the Subcommittee determined that the Corporation
received an additional $40.8 million in direct federal money
through various interagency agreements with other Executive
Branch agencies and departments. This is an amount equal to 20
percent of the Corporation's fiscal year 1994 appropriation,
excluding its educational trust.
This fact raised serious concerns. For example, the work of
the Members of this Committee, which have legislative and
oversight responsibility over the Corporation, could be
subverted by the increased reliance on other federal entities.
More broadly, the web of federal funding sources for the
Corporation has the effect of quelling Congressional oversight
generally by spreading the appropriated amounts across several
authorizing Committees. Because the spending by any individual
department or agency on the Corporation, when viewed
separately, is relatively small, the Committees authorizing
those funds may have little incentive (or knowledge) to closely
monitor the activities carried out with those funds.
While the Subcommittee requested from the Corporation and
reviewed copies of what it believed were all the interagency
agreements between the Corporation and other federal agencies,
it was not until the Subcommittee received a complaint from the
San Francisco Public Housing Authority, that the Subcommittee
learned of the existence of the interagency agreements that
require private or local spending on AmeriCorps or AmeriCorps
type activities. These agreements call for the Corporation to
receive $690,811 from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), and in return the Corporation provides HUD
with staff time and educational awards valued at over $1.5
million.
The size of the commitment on the part of the Corporation
raised serious concerns. Most importantly, how did the
Corporation intend to fund this obligation? The Subcommittee
learned that the Corporation, through similar agreements, had
been given exclusive veto power over the $1.3 billion
appropriated under HOPE VI--the Urban Revitalization
Demonstration Program (Program). Under the Program, the San
Francisco Public Housing Authority must use 7 to 10 percent of
its funding for ``community service.'' While the Program does
not identify AmeriCorps specifically, the San Francisco Public
Housing Authority testified that they felt pressured to utilize
AmeriCorps so as to ease the approval process because the
Corporation is the gatekeeper to HOPE VI funds.
The investigation into this area led the Corporation, under
an agreement with Senator Grassley, to end its practice of
operating AmeriCorps programs directly with other federal
agencies and departments. However, because the Corporation was
still managing to utilize these federal resources indirectly,
the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1996, P.L. 104-
208, Section 314, included specific language requiring any
federal agency seeking to provide funding to the Corporation to
seek approval of a reprogramming request.
Per Member Costs.--On June 30, 1995, the Subcommittee
announced its initial findings that the cost to the American
taxpayer per AmeriCorps member was $27,749 per year. In
particular, the Subcommittee found that federal programs had
budgeted costs that ranged from a low of $17,362 to $51,509 per
member--well above the amounts projected when the Corporation
was created. In fact, former Chief Executive Officer of the
Corporation, Eli Segal, testified that per member costs were
just under $20,000.
Two months later, the General Accounting Office (GAO)
released its report on the cost of AmeriCorps. That report
demonstrated that total spending per member ranged from $25,797
to $31,017. This report went a step further and noted that
costs in the AmeriCorps program equaled $16 per hour of
AmeriCorps service. Finally, this report noted that AmeriCorps
was funded almost entirely with public funds. While fully 78
percent came from the federal government, an additional 15
percent was provided out of State and local tax receipts. In
short, despite being created as a public/private partnership,
93 percent of AmeriCorps funding was provided by government
funding.
Wasteful Spending.--As a result of the extraordinary costs
attributed to AmeriCorps members, the Subcommittee conducted a
review of the line by line budget items of federal AmeriCorps
grantees. In particular, the Subcommittee found uniform costs
varying from $151 per member at the Department of the Interior,
to almost $1,500 per member at the Department of the Navy.
Spending on travel and transportation ranged from $148 per
member at the Department of Transportation to almost $3,000 at
the Environmental Protection Agency. Additionally, the
Subcommittee found over $3.5 million budgeted in unspecified
accounts or ``other.'' The Navy budgeted over $13,000 per
member in such an account, while the National Endowment for the
Arts budgeted $5,600 per member. In all, over $1,500 per member
was budgeted in ``other'' accounts.
The Subcommittee also uncovered the fact that the
Corporation spent large amounts of money on ``training and
technical assistance'' grants. In particular, the Subcommittee
uncovered one such contract with the AFL-CIO which amounted to
$400,000. Other contractors included the Multicultural
Institute and the National Association of Community Mediation.
In total, the Subcommittee found that the Corporation had spent
almost $13 million on such contracts--the equivalent of over
700 AmeriCorps members.
At the same time, the Subcommittee found that the
Corporation was operating a Leadership Training Center at the
Presidio, an area overlooking the San Francisco Bay and the
Golden Gate Bridge. Complete with two golf courses, the
Presidio Leadership Center is designed to ``equip community
leaders with proven management skills.'' The Subcommittee also
investigated possible illegal activities at the Presidio
Leadership Center which involved customized corporate
training--an activity outside the scope of the Corporation's
authorization. The cost for this new center is expected to
exceed $1 million in 1996.
The Subcommittee's investigation into these areas is
ongoing and has already resulted in the Corporation reviewing
its spending and agreeing to reduce its per member costs. In
addition, the Corporation's questionable expenditures have
resulted in the Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
initiating financial reviews into several expenditures of the
Corporation.
National Identity Expenditures.--The Subcommittee also
initiated a review into some of the activities of AmeriCorps
grantees. The Subcommittee uncovered large amounts of taxpayer
funds being expended to promote the ``national identity'' of
the Corporation. Such expenditures include the hiring of public
relations firms and the purchase of ``palm cards, site signs
and uniforms'' (which included T-shirts, jackets, sweat suits,
work clothes, and many other items procured through the
Corporation, each emblazoned with the Corporation's official
seal).
In addition, Americorps members are encouraged to ``work''
with the media and the Corporation published a ``Guide to
Working With the Media.'' Additionally, members are encouraged
to write op-eds, appear on local TV and radio stations, and
work to include their local Members of Congress. Such an
emphasis appears to be more targeted at ``getting seen,''
rather than at ``getting things done,'' which is not only
AmeriCorps' motto, but is the appropriate way to carry out
service to one's community.
The Subcommittee's investigation into this matter led the
Corporation to agree to end its requirement to have members
wear uniforms. They have also stated that they will review
their ``national identity'' activities generally. Despite this
fact, the Subcommittee continues to see wasteful spending in
these areas.
Political Activities.--Finally, the OIG and the
Subcommittee independently found evidence of political activity
by grantees of the Corporation. Most notable in this regard is
the OIG's findings on the apparent cross-over funding between
ACORN, a political advocacy group and ACORN Housing Corp.
(AHC), a non profit, AmeriCorps grantee. The OIG recommended,
and the Corporation agreed, to suspend AHC's funding after it
was learned that AHC and ACORN shared office space and
equipment and failed to assure that activities and funds were
wholly separate. The Subcommittee held a hearing on this matter
where it was revealed that AmeriCorps members of AHC raised
funds for ACORN, performed voter registration activities, and
gave partisan speeches. In one instance, an AmeriCorps member
was directed by ACORN staff to assist the White House in
preparing a press conference in support of legislation.
AmeriCorps members were also directed to encourage their
clients to lobby on behalf of legislation.
On the heels of the ACORN investigation, the OIG also
uncovered illegal political activities by the Coal Coalition,
an AmeriCorps program in Colorado that was improperly
distributing political flyers. In the same vein, another
AmeriCorps program, the Border Volunteer Corps (BVC) in Tucson,
Arizona was found to have also distributed politically partisan
newsletters. These programs were also stripped of Corporation
funding. Since the BVC, the Coal Coalition, and AHC were all
relatively large AmeriCorps grantees--the Subcommittee is
concerned about the oversight and direction of AmeriCorps'
funding and activities.
The Subcommittee also identified activities which included
voter registration drives, get out the vote campaigns,
``national election'' activities, and participation in a Maxine
Waters Day of Caring by AmeriCorps volunteers. Most troubling,
however, is the continued presence of AmeriCorps members at
political rallies and speeches after the assurance of the
former Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, Eli Segal,
that such participation would cease. AmeriCorps' presence at
such events gives the impression of political support and would
give the appearance of impropriety.
Misuse of Funds.--Concerns over AmeriCorps' costs are
further compounded by several audits conducted by the
Corporation's OIG. These reports have detailed the findings of
audits and investigations of several of the larger grantees of
the Corporation. Some salient examples include $95,000 in
questioned costs at AHC and $190,000 at BVC. In the latter
case, BVC was found to have purchased a $12,000 car (gas and
maintenance), paid commuting charges for employees, paid for
four trips to Mexico for the Director who was paid $85,000 per
year--over $45,000 more than his predecessor and 50 percent
higher than comparable Directors in AmeriCorps funded programs.
National Endowment for the Arts
Authorization for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)
expired at the end of fiscal year 1993. However, funding for
the NEA has continued to be appropriated on a yearly basis, but
no authorizing legislation has been enacted primarily due to
controversy surrounding a number of artists and projects funded
by the NEA.
The Subcommittee reviewed art projects currently being
funded through the NEA, including a review of the NEA's grant
notices, its annual reports, certain grant documents, copies of
videos prepared with NEA funds, and site visits to museums
where NEA funded art is being displayed. While this review is
ongoing, several of the Subcommittee's findings raise serious
questions about the current activities of the NEA. For example,
on June 14, 1996, the Subcommittee requested a copy of the film
``Watermelon Woman'' and all related grant information from the
NEA. This film portrays graphic homosexual sex, is strewn with
graphic and degrading sexual language, and portrays illegal use
of drugs as casual.
The Subcommittee is committed to continuing its review of
art funded through the NEA. This information will assist
Congress and the public in determining if funding the NEA is an
appropriate expenditure of taxpayer money.
The Federal Direct Student Loan Program
The Subcommittee followed certain principles in reviewing
federal education programs. One of the chief tenants of the
Subcommittee is ensuring that federal education programs focus
on an appropriate federal mission. Accordingly, the
Subcommittee analyzed whether or not it is appropriate for the
Department of Education to be, in effect, one of the largest
banks in the United States.
Under the Federal Direct Student Loan Program (FDSLP) the
federal government has taken on the responsibility to act as a
bank for millions of students throughout this nation. In light
of this new role the Subcommittee held hearings on the two
major federal student loan programs, Federal Family Education
Loans (FFELP) and FDSLP.
The FDSLP began in 1993. Since its inception, there has
been fierce debate in Congress regarding the FDSLP. This debate
involves: 1) the tremendous number of federal employees
necessary to administer FDLSP, 2) the huge federal expense
involved in FDLSP's operation, 3) whether FDLSP is a more
effective and efficient way to provide educational loans to
students, and 4) whether the FDLSP performs a necessary and
appropriate federal function. The Subcommittee also raised
concerns about the direct involvement of the federal government
in the program, particularly in light of the devolution of
power and responsibility to State and local officials.
On May 23, 1995, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the
FDSLP. One of the most significant issues that came to light
during the May 23rd hearing was that a number of schools
expressed their position that the FDSLP is unnecessary and that
they were pleased with the FFELP. In this regard, a letter from
the Director of Financial Aid at the University of Nebraska at
Kearney stated the general opinion of many, when he said, ``we
have chosen not to apply for the Direct Lending Program due to
the fact that we have an exceptionally efficient process
currently in place with the Federal Stafford Loan Program.'' In
light of this and other similar letters, the Subcommittee
continues to be concerned with why the 103rd Congress created
the FDLSP which required the hiring of hundreds of federal
employees and billions of dollars in new expenditures by the
Department of Education.
Moreover, since the hearing, the Subcommittee uncovered a
number of alarming and potentially devastating problems with
the FDSLP. For example, the Subcommittee found information
demonstrating that the Department of Education pushed back
reporting requirements for schools. Consequently, the
Department of Education will not receive timely and critical
information about students and their loans. There are a number
of schools that have failed to produce Student Status
Confirmation Reports for their students who are in the FDSLP.
Therefore, those students will not be placed in loan repayment
in a timely manner.
These problems raise a number of significant concerns
regarding the implementation of the FDSLP. First, the
Department of Education, which contracts with various
independent for-profit companies for billions of dollars in
services, is not collecting necessary data in a timely fashion.
For example, questions have arisen regarding the data
maintained on matters, such as whether a student continues to
be enrolled at an institution. Second, the General Accounting
Office, the Department of Education's Office of the Inspector
General, and the Advisory Committee on Student Financial
Assistance concluded that the Department of Education lacks the
technical expertise and experience to administer complicated
contracts for services which are vital to the operation of the
FDSLP. As a result, the Subcommittee is gravely concerned that
some students are and will continue to be hurt by the
inadequacies of the FDLSP and, ultimately, the taxpayer is left
to pay the bill when these students default on the repayment of
their student loans.
The information vacuum that the Subcommittee has observed
in the FDLSP does not exist in the FFELP because the reporting
requirements differ. In addition, the FFELP has become
considerably stronger over the last few years and has responded
well to competition. The guaranty agencies, lenders, and
secondary markets have become more responsive to the needs of
students and schools as evidenced by electronic loan processing
and 24 hour turnaround for applications.
The Department of Education has become an advocate against
this public/private student loan partnership. It has stymied
improvements that would benefit students and schools alike in
order to garner a larger share of the student loan market for
the FDSLP. It has also attempted to establish an environment
where schools feel compelled to join the FDSLP. But, despite
the Department of Education's efforts nearly 100 postsecondary
schools, approved by the Department of Education to participate
in the third year of its FDSLP, have dropped out since May,
1996. Finally, the Subcommittee has been in frequent contact
with the Department of Education's Office of the Inspector
General, which is near completion of an audit of FDSLP, using
16 schools selected at random and 7 schools selected as
potential problem schools. The audits will be comprehensive and
focus on the various aspects of the program and potential areas
of weakness.
B. Works Effectively and Efficiently
The federal government can no longer take a laissez faire
attitude with regard to the manner in which it spends taxpayer
dollars. Indeed, taxpayers are demanding that the federal
government utilize its scarce federal dollars in an efficient
and effective manner. In this regard, the Subcommittee examined
several matters that equate to an apparent disregard for the
basic principles of efficiency and effectiveness. In this
report, the National Labor Relations Board is examined in terms
of, among other things, its adjudicatory practices, and travel
policies. In addition, the circumstances leading to the
decision of Clinton Administration officials at the Department
of Labor to expend unnecessarily almost $32,000 is also
examined in detail.
The National Labor Relations Board's increased use of 10(j) injunctions
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB/Board) has
dramatically increased its use of 10(j) injunction authority
against employers. As the filing of 10(j) petitions became more
commonplace under Chairman William Gould's and General Counsel
Fred Feinstein's NLRB, serious due process concerns and
questions about the use of NLRB procedures to assist unions
have been raised including concerns about the Board's
impartiality and neutrality.
The NLRB's 83 10(j) authorizations in fiscal year 1994
represent an increase of nearly 100 percent over the 42
authorizations issued in fiscal year 1993, and an increase of
more than 300 percent over the 26 authorizations issued in
fiscal year 1992. The NLRB has become even more zealous in its
use of the 10(j) injunction. Between January 1, 1994, and June
13, 1995, the NLRB authorized the pursuit of injunctive relief
in 162 cases. The impact of increases in 10(j) cases is
significant in terms of time, energy, and money. This is
illustrated by the fact that the NLRB:
Devotes approximately 34 staff days to process each
10(j) injunction and
Spends more than $10,000 to process each injunction.
Accordingly, the NLRB spent an estimated $452,408 to
process 44 authorizations during a 13-month period and an
estimated $1,337,945 to process 127 authorizations from a
second 12-month period.
Evidence strongly suggests the NLRB is deliberately using
its 10(j) authority to force employers to settle unfair labor
practice charges. Former NLRB General Counsel Collyer stated at
a hearing that the NLRB's agenda has compromised its procedures
and has led to a ``rush to judgment.'' Such a ``rush to
judgment'' undermines the NLRB's legitimate responsibilities
and disregards a party's presumption of innocence.
Travel practices at the National Labor Relations Board
It is well accepted that the individuals who are
responsible for the operation of a federal entity find it
necessary to travel from time to time and accept invitations
from around the country to discuss issues critical to the
business of that entity. But one would not expect high-level
government officials to abuse this authority in the face of
scarce federal dollars.
Forty-five thousand dollars ($45,000) in federal funds was
expended by the Board for the period of March 1994 through
March 1995. A major portion of those funds were expended by
Chairman Gould.
During this same period, Board members traveled together,
as well as independently, to such locations as Vancouver,
British Columbia; London, England; Johannesburg, South Africa;
Nassau, Bahamas; Rome, Italy; San Juan, Puerto Rico; and
Taipei, Taiwan.
Of the number of trips taken by Board members, none
warranted as much attention as that enjoyed by NLRB members
Cohen, Truesdale, and Stephens. During the winter months of
February 18 through March 2, 1995, these three Board members
traveled to Kahului, Maui, for the American Bar Association
(ABA) conference on practice and procedure and then continued
on to Key West, Florida, to attend another ABA-sponsored
conference on developing a labor law committee. The combined
cost of this travel to the American taxpayer was almost
$10,000.
The South Africa trip
In May 1994, the people of South Africa selected a new
leader--Nelson Mandela. After the election, an inauguration was
scheduled that was attended by Chairman Gould.
Several days before the scheduled inauguration date
Chairman Gould had not received an invitation to the
ceremonies. As a result, he contacted Mr. Trevor Wentzel of the
Ravensmead Workers Advice Bureau in South Africa regarding the
fact that he had not received an invitation to the
inauguration. In response to this communique, Mr. Wentzel, at
4:19 p.m. on May 6, 1994, provided Chairman Gould an
invitation. Shortly after receiving the invitation, Chairman
Gould purchased a ticket for Johannesburg, South Africa, at a
cost of about $4,000 to the taxpayers.
Therefore, not only did NLRB Chairman Gould solicit an
invitation to the inauguration of Nelson Mandela, but he spent
approximately $4,000 in taxpayer funds to attend that function.
Chairman Gould's reimbursement from non-federal sources
There are a series of ethical rules, standards, and
regulations concerning the payment of a federal employee's
travel expenses by an outside, private party. The Subcommittee
discovered that Chairman Gould had accepted travel expenses
from, among others, the AFL-CIO--a consortium of labor unions
that made more than 20,000 filings with the NLRB in 1993 alone.
In an effort to determine the propriety of the receipt of
such travel expenses by Chairman Gould and the NLRB, the
Subcommittee requested a legal opinion from the Congressional
Research Service (CRS) regarding the propriety of the receipt
of travel funds from an organization that regularly has matters
adjudicated by the NLRB. Among the important points made by the
CRS was the following:
Under regulations promulgated by the General Services
Administration [GSA], the agency may accept travel
expenses for a meeting or similar function ``which the
employee has been authorized to attend in an official
capacity on behalf of the employing agency.'' 41 C.F.R
Sec. 304-1.3(a) (1996). A ``meeting or similar
function'' includes a ``conference, seminar, speaking
engagement, symposium, training course, or similar
event that takes place away from the employee's
official station, and is sponsored or co-sponsored by a
non-federal source.'' 41 C.F.R. Sec. 304-1.2(c)(3)
(1996). There is within the GSA regulations a
``conflict of interest'' provision which directs
agencies not to approve private reimbursement for
travel if acceptance ``would cause a reasonable person
with knowledge of all the facts relevant to a
particular case to question the integrity of agency
programs and operations.'' 41 C.F.R. 304 Sec. 304-1.5
(1996). In addition to considering the identity of the
source, the purpose of the meeting and the value and
character of the travel expenses provided, the agency
should consider in making such conflict of interest
determinations the ``nature and sensitivity of any
matter pending at the agency affecting the interests''
of non-federal source of payments and the significance
of the employee's role in such a matter. 41 C.F.R.
Sec. 304-1.5(a)(1)-(6) (1996). Such conflict of
interest and ethics determinations, since they involve
subjective judgments and issues of appearances relating
to an agency's own mission and functions, as well as
the specific duties and functions of one of its
employees or officials, are the types of matters that
have generally been found to be administrative
determinations within the specific discretion and
expertise of the agency itself.
Based on this language, it appears that Chairman Gould's
decision to accept travel funds and expenditures from the AFL-
CIO, at a minimum, presents itself as a conflict of interest.
The AFL-CIO is a consortium of some of the largest and most
powerful members of organized labor in the United States. To
accept their funds and later adjudicate their issues is
inappropriate on its face and calls into question the integrity
of certain NLRB actions.
In addition, according to travel logs provided by the NLRB,
Chairman Gould has traveled outside the Washington, D.C. area
on official business 51 times during his 2\1/2\-year tenure at
the NLRB. Equally disturbing is the fact that while on this
``official'' NLRB travel, Chairman Gould attended 42 separate
sporting events, including 5 professional basketball games, 5
college baseball games, 31 professional baseball games, and the
1996 Major League All Star game.
The freedom with which the NLRB, including its Chairman,
spends taxpayer dollars--whether it be on an ABA meeting in
Hawaii during the winter months or the Chairman soliciting an
invitation to the inauguration of Nelson Mandela in South
Africa and later attending that function, calls into question
the ability of this NLRB to act as good stewards of federal
funds.
Corporate campaigns
John Sweeney, President of the AFL-CIO, declared a new
direction for the international labor unions that the
Federation represents. Mr. Sweeney declared that labor would
become far more militant in the pursuit of organizing and
collective bargaining objectives. The term used to organize
formally non-union corporations became known as ``corporate
campaigns.''
A ``corporate campaign'' has several distinct elements. Two
of the most prominent elements are: having the target company
perceived negatively by the company's investors, customers,
employees and the public, and initiating enforcement and
oversight actions by federal, State, and local governmental
agencies. In other words, organized labor in a ``corporate
campaign'' does not necessarily target the employees of the
corporation as it had done historically, but rather focuses on
corporate management. Perhaps Stephen Lerner, Organizing
Director of the Service Employees International Union said it
best--
Instead of asking, `How do we win a majority of
(employee) votes?', we should be asking, `How do we
develop power to force employers to recognize the union
and sign a contract.'
During the course of the 104th Congress many concerns were
raised by targeted corporations regarding the tactics used by
organized labor and their attendant relationship with the NLRB.
Employers argued that the NLRB was favoring organized labor and
was indeed a willing pawn in the ``corporate campaign''
strategy. As a result of these repeated and serious
allegations, the Subcommittee conducted two hearings and one
round-table discussion.
The first hearing held by the Subcommittee invited NLRB
Chairman Gould, General Counsel Feinstein, and a variety of
small and large employers to recount their personal
experiences. The second hearing held by the Subcommittee
focused on the ``corporate campaign'' technique of salting--the
placing of professional union organizers or members in a
nonunion facility to harass or disrupt contractor operations,
to increase costs, or to organize.
These two hearings raised a number of concerns for the
Subcommittee including the following:
Organizing nonunion employees into a unified union
membership is not necessarily the objective of union
organizers;
Resources are not an obstacle for the unions when it
comes to public relations;
The cost of frivolous complaints and other federal
agency charges fall on the businesses and the federal
taxpayer while the unions have no direct accountability
or cost; and
Jeopardizing jobs and employer viability is
ultimately more important than ensuring that workers
have good wages, safe worksites and fulfilling jobs.
In conclusion, the pursuit of injunctive relief, the NLRB's
handling of ``salting'' cases and the public comments of the
NLRB Chairman have served as ample evidence that the NLRB may
be biased against the regulated employer community.
Partisanship, partiality and the declining stature of the National
Labor Relations Board
During the past four years, the National Labor Relations
Board (NLRB/Board) has received harsh criticism from U.S.
Courts of Appeals for the legal reasoning underlying its
rulings in several key cases. As the percentage of NLRB orders
affirmed by federal appellate courts has sunk to all-time lows
the current NLRB has ignored past NLRB and court precedent and
has sidestepped key factual issues to reach outcomes that have
been soundly rejected by appeals courts. Warren, Gorham &
Lamont, Inside Labor Relations, (May 31, 1996). Similarly, in
numerous NLRB requests for injunctive relief, federal district
courts have also been unpersuaded by the NLRB's legal and
factual conclusions in seeking preliminary remedies. While
admittedly past NLRBs have also been admonished by the federal
courts, the Committee was struck by the force of the strident
criticism leveled at the Gould-Feinstein NLRB by federal
judges.
The Perdue decision
In a case involving an attempt by the United Food &
Commercial Workers Union (UFCW) to organize employees at a
facility owned by Perdue Farms, an employer had to resort to
the highly unusual move of seeking injunctive relief in a U.S.
district court to prevent the NLRB from persisting in moving
toward ordering a third election at its facilities. The
employer took this move after its employees rejected union
representation by significant margins in two elections and
after the NLRB largely ignored evidence of massive fraud in the
collection of authorization cards and continued processing
objections by the UFCW which would possibly lead to a third
election. In scathing terms, the district court granted the
employer's request and enjoined the NLRB from proceeding
further in the matter until it had proven to the court that it
had conducted an appropriate investigation into the allegations
of fraud. The language of the court's opinion is notable for
its harshness regarding the NLRB's conduct:
At present, the only possible explanation for the
NLRB's behavior is the one proposed by the employer:
``that the Board is manipulating its election rules
capriciously in order to foster the interests of the
United Food & Commercial Workers Union.'' Perdue Farms,
Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 935 F. Supp. 713,
721 (E.D. N.C. 1996).
Thus, as the cases demonstrate, the Board has not
only abandoned its Casehandling Manual, but no less
than three times where this particular Union local is
involved, its legal policy as well. Such dramatic
reversals tend to create an appearance of partisanship
the Board can ill afford if it hopes to retain a
supervisory role over labor relations. 935 F. Supp. At
722 (emphasis added).
Yet the legal policy reversals do not reveal the full
extent of the Board's efforts on behalf of the Union. .
. . 935 F. Supp. At 722 (emphasis added).
. . . The Board refuses to obey this statutory duty
by defying numerous guidelines and regulations,
engaging a significant policy departure which remains
unexplained. This occurs against the backdrop of [sic]
several legal policy reversals by the Board in favor of
the Union, a representation to the plaintiff by a Board
field examiner that the current hearing is a sham, and
ignorance of the plaintiff's FOIA requests sufficient
to invoke district court jurisdiction over that
dispute. 935 F. Supp. At 725 (emphasis added).
The strength of the district court's condemnation of the
NLRB's handling of the Perdue election is troubling to the
Subcommittee because of the message it sends to both employers
and employees as to the fairness and effectiveness of the
NLRB's processes for administering the NLRA. While in isolation
the Perdue decision might be an unfortunate footnote to the
Gould-Feinstein tenure at the NLRB, there have been similar
decisions in which the federal courts have expressed profound
objections to the NLRB's handling of both representation and
unfair labor practice cases.
Other court decisions
In a series of decisions, the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals twice had to admonish the NLRB to cease its attempts to
revive a representation proceeding and election at a facility
owned by the Lundy Packing Company. The case involved a
bargaining unit determination in which the employer was
contending that the NLRB had improperly excluded industrial
engineers from a unit of production and maintenance employees.
The Fourth Circuit agreed with the employer and determined that
the ``NLRB's bargaining unit determination both contravened its
own announced standards and accorded controlling weight to the
extent of union organization at Lundy, thereby violating
section 9(c)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act,'' which
specifically prohibits such a factor from being dispositive. In
cautioning the NLRB, the court remarked:
The deference owed the Board as the primary guardian
of the bargaining process is well established. It will
not extend, however, to the point where the boundaries
of the Act are plainly breached.
The court then denied enforcement of the NLRB's order that the
employer begin to bargain with the union. Nat'l Labor Relations
Bd. v. Lundy Packing Co., 68 F.3d 1577, 1583 (4th Cir. 1995).
As if the Fourth Circuit's admonition were not enough, the
NLRB treated the decision as a mere distraction and proceeded
to count the challenged ballots to determine if certification
of the union would be appropriate. This action forced the
employer to return to the Fourth Circuit, and the court told
the NLRB in no uncertain terms that ``the attempt by the Board
to revive the representation petition and the election that
followed exceeds the Board's jurisdiction.'' (Nat'l Labor
Relations Bd. v. Lundy Packing Co., 81 F. 3d 25, 26) (4th Cir.
1996). Nonetheless, the NLRB refused to take no for an answer
and asked the Fourth Circuit to reconsider, whereupon the
seemingly exasperated court stated:
The NLRB acted in clear contravention of its
jurisdictional limits and sought to bypass this court.
. . . As we explained in our order of February 15,
1996, the NLRB has no such authority. The court
reiterates its respect for the NLRB's role in the area
of national labor relations law. The court expects in
turn respect for its processes and mandates. Nat'l
Labor Relations Bd. v. Lundy Packing Co., No. 95-
1364(L) (4th Cir. March 21, 1996) (unpublished opinion)
(quoted in part in Perdue, 935 F. Supp. 713).
Like both the Perdue and the Lundy Packing cases, Shepard
Convention Servs., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. (85 F. 3d
671) (D.C. Cir. 1996) represents another instance where the
NLRB disregarded long-standing NLRB policy and had to be reined
in by a federal court. That case involved an organizing effort
by the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees
where the union, citing the large number of eligible voters
that will be on-call workers, requested that the election be
conducted by mail. The NLRB Regional Director denied the
request, and the union filed a ``special request'' for review
by the NLRB. The NLRB, finding that the Regional Director had
abused his discretion by denying the union's request, directed
a mail ballot election for the on-call employees. After the
Regional Director ordered all eligible employees to vote by
mail, the employer requested review, as the NLRB's order had
referred only to on-call employees. The employer's request for
review was summarily denied.
A mail ballot election was then conducted over a period of
two weeks. Only 77 of the 438 eligible employees, or
approximately 17.5 percent of the workforce, voted. Of the 68
ballots that were not challenged, 40 were cast for the union
that was then certified as the bargaining despite the
objections to the election that were filed by Shepard. After
Shepard refused to bargain with the union, the NLRB issued an
order finding the employer's refusal an unfair labor practice.
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals found that the
Regional Director had ``properly denied the union's request for
an election by mail'' and that the NLRB ``undertook to second-
guess the Regional Director in violation of its own
regulations.'' 85 F. 3d at 674. The court went on to conclude:
In sum, the NLRB's reversal of the Regional
Director's discretionary decision to conduct a manual
election cannot be upheld. Had the NLRB left the
decision intact, as its regulations required, voter
turnout might well have been higher. . . . It could
hardly have been lower. 85 F. 3d at 675.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has also had strong
words for the NLRB. In a case involving an NLRB decision to
certify a union over the objections of the employer that
supervisory employees were improperly included in the
bargaining unit, the Seventh Circuit had this admonition for
the NLRB:
While we adhere to the generally accepted standard of
review discussed above, the fact of the matter is that
``[a]n administrative agency, like any other first-line
tribunal, earns--or forfeits--deferential judicial
review by its performance.'' In the context of
classifying supervisors, the NLRB's manipulation of the
definition provided in section 152(11) has earned it
little deference. We remain mindful of the statutory
prescription of judicial restraint but note that such
restraint ``does not entail complete abdication of the
judicial role. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Winnebago
Television Corp., 75 F.3d 1208, 1214 (7th Cir. 1996).
A November 8, 1996, decision by the Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia was similarly critical of the Board in
the case of Skyline Distribs. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., No.
95-1571, slip opinion, (Nov. 8, 1996). In that case, the Board
ordered the employer to bargain with the union, even though the
union had been rejected by the employees involved, based on an
alleged unfair labor practice concerning a pay raise. While
recognizing that such a bargaining order may be appropriate in
extreme situations, Judge Harry T. Edward rejected the remedy,
noting that the Board had ``no basis'' to issue such an order
and that ``Indeed, the Board's decision to issue a bargaining
order in this case is so lacking in evidentiary support and
reasoned decisionmaking that it seems whimsical.'' The court
also noted that the Board's remedy could not be enforced
``because the Board has given no credence whatsoever to
employee ``free choice.'' These are strong criticisms indeed--
here made more alarming by the fact that the Board's remedy
would have forced employees to be represented by a union they
had rejected.
Conclusion
The opinions of both the federal courts and of labor law
practitioners regarding the conduct of the NLRB are of concern
to the Subcommittee. This is the case because the very nature
of the NLRB's responsibilities requires that it maintain the
respect and interest of both labor and management as it uses
the applicable law to drive the parties toward peaceful and
orderly resolution of labor disputes. The statutory make-up of
the NLRB, where various arms of the agency are both judge and
prosecutor of alleged violations of the law, demands a strong
commitment to impartiality. But, unfortunately, it does not
appear that such a commitment has been made by the current
NLRB. Both the review of court decisions assessing the NLRB's
actions and the oversight activities of the Subcommittee
indicate that Chairman Gould and General Counsel Feinstein have
apparently neglected the traditions of the NLRB to the
detriment of the agency's stature in the eyes of the federal
courts, the Congress and the public.
Mismanagement within the Department of Education, Office of
Postsecondary Education: Creation of A Student Loan Hierarchy
Since the inception of the Federal Direct Student Loan
Programs (FDSLP) and its unique chain of command, new problems
have arisen within the Department of Education. These problems
include infighting among high ranking employees that have
negatively impacted the efficient and effective operation of
the higher education lending programs. According to a June 1996
report to the Subcommittee from the Department of Education's
Office of the Inspector General (OIG) these personality
differences ``exacerbated the poor communication, contributed
to poor coordination between their respective staffs, a further
deterioration of morale, and heightened human resource
management concerns in the bifurcated structure.''
One of the major functions of the Department of Education
involves administering student financial aid programs for
higher education. The Subcommittee is seriously concerned about
reports that the divided management structure intended to
implement the student financial aid programs has been one of
the most significant failings of the Department of Education.
Indeed, in August 1995 the Advisory Committee on Student
Financial Assistance (Advisory Committee) wrote a scathing
report about the divided management of the FDSLP and the
Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP). In particular
the Advisory Committee stated:
[The] Department of Education has chosen a structure
that cannot adequately address its major management
challenges: the redesign of the Title IV delivery
system, implementation of the [FDSLP], and reform of
the FFELP. Furthermore, responsibility for both
implementing the [FDSLP] and overseeing FFELP reform is
concentrated in a special advisor to the Secretary (Leo
Kornfeld). However, this advisor has stated publicly
that FFELP reform is not a priority.
The Subcommittee will continue examining the FDSLP to
ensure that scarce federal dollars are used effectively and
efficiently despite the inadequate management structure at the
Department of Education.
The entitlement maze
During the first session of the 104th Congress, the
Subcommittee began examining entitlement programs, including
the voluminous amount of paperwork an individual must complete
prior to obtaining food stamps, job training, and/or child
care. Specifically, on March 27, 1995, the Subcommittee held a
hands-on hearing regarding federal and State assistance
programs. The purpose of this hearing was to provide Members
with an opportunity to ``step into the shoes'' of a family
seeking assistance from federal and State programs.
During this simulation, the Members participated in a role
playing exercise where they became honorary members of the
Hernandez family--a family living in the City Heights section
of San Diego, California.
Members had the opportunity to participate actively in the
simulation and were asked to complete application forms
required by federal and State assistance programs. In order for
them to get a real appreciation for the human side of this
process, the simulation mediator, Ms. Margret Dunkle of the
Institute for Educational Leadership, brought along 13
employees from the San Diego area, including many front-line
individuals who were responsible for making eligibility
determinations for many of the programs the Members dealt with
during the simulation.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Members found the
process to be confusing, burdensome, and generally
unacceptable. Indeed, Members were not only concerned with the
sheer volume and duplicative nature of the information
requested by applicants from entitlement agencies, but were
surprised that relevant information cannot be exchanged between
agencies assessing eligibility of applicants requesting more
than one entitlement.
The minimum wage hotline
On November 8, 1995, it was brought to the attention of the
Subcommittee that the Department of Labor created and activated
a toll-free minimum wage hotline that was intended to identify
minimum wage workers who were interested in an increase in the
minimum wage. The Subcommittee's main concern was whether or
not this hotline was a waste of valuable taxpayer funds and
whether or not its existence was in accordance with all
applicable law. Therefore, on November 14, 1995, the
Subcommittee sent a letter to the Department of Labor regarding
the implementation of this hotline.
On December 5, 1995, the Department of Labor responded to
the Subcommittee's inquiry. According to the Department of
Labor, the intent of the hotline was to gather information for
use before Congress. The Department of Labor indicated that:
[The] Department of Labor believes this use of
technology is one example of a cost effective and
minimally burdensome means of making factual
information about the actual consequences of proposed
policy changes available to policymakers.
When asked what steps were taken to publicize the hotline,
the Department of Labor noted that the availability of the
hotline was communicated through a press release, a number of
speeches given by Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, and several
radio interviews. Based on documentation obtained by the
Subcommittee, the Department of Labor failed to mention that
they personally contacted approximately 15 labor unions,
including the AFL-CIO, advising them that the hotline was
operational and requested that they share this information with
their affiliates and other interested parties. Even more
disturbing were the actions of one high-level Department of
Labor official who prepared and distributed materials regarding
the hotline that contravened applicable lobbying laws. Due to
these and other inappropriate actions by this high-level
official, Mr. Richard F. Sawyer--a Secretary's Representative--
was terminated.
The $32,000 copying bill
In June of 1995, the Subcommittee learned that the
Department of Labor was regularly incurring costs associated
with the use of private reproduction and copying services
throughout the Washington D.C. area. In response to
Subcommittee inquiries, the Department of Labor identified
about 20 instances where it had used the services of private
copying enterprises. The costs incurred by the Department of
Labor for these services ranged from a low of $21.00 to a high
of $31,830.00. Most notably, on the eve of the President's
State of the Union Address, the Department of Labor ordered
additional copies of the President's ``Middle Class Bill of
Rights.''
The 1995 State of the Union Address
During the early evening hours of January 24, 1995, high-
level Department of Labor staff determined that the 200 copies
of the document that had been produced internally were
insufficient and that many more copies were needed. Instead of
contacting the Government Printing Office (GPO), as required,
and complying with the Department of Labor's internal policies
and procedures, the Office of the Secretary contracted with
Kinko's, a private copying enterprise. Kinko's was tasked with
producing 1,500 color, collated copies of the ``Middle Class
Bill of Rights'' by 9:30 a.m. the very next day--the day of the
President's State of the Union Address.
The bill for the overnight reproduction of the ``Middle
Class Bill of Rights'' was $31,830.00. On April 15, 1995, the
Acting Director of Administration and Procurement Programs
wrote to the Joint Committee on Printing seeking an after-the-
fact waiver of law. Specifically, the Department of Labor
requested approval for payment of the $31,830.00 Kinko's bill
for printing services acquired from a source other than the
GPO.
The Joint Committee on Printing denied the Department of
Labor's request for a waiver because the Department of Labor:
(1) Ignored a number of notices addressed to the
heads of all departments and agencies, including the
Department of Labor, concerning the limitations on
appropriated funds for the direct procurement of
printing and duplicating;
(2) Failed to coordinate with its own Administration
and Management officials for the reproduction;
(3) Engaged in spontaneous decision-making in going
to Kinko's as a sole source provider; and
(4) Was a repeat offender, in that this was not the
first incident of ``illegal'' printing by the
Department of Labor.
Repeat offenders: Political appointees
In addition to denying the Department of Labor's request
for a waiver, the Joint Committee on Printing requested that
the Department of Labor's Office of the Inspector General
conduct a review of the ``Department's acquisitions of
printing. . . . '' The Office of the Inspector General
determined that the Department maintained sufficient internal
controls to prevent the improper expenditure of appropriated
funds for printing. Indeed, the Department of Labor had
implemented appropriate policies and procedures to safeguard
taxpayer funds and to ensure the efficient and effective use of
scarce federal resources. But the Department of Labor's Office
of the Inspector General identified a different problem that
cannot be corrected by mere policies and procedures--after all,
policies and procedures must be followed to have any meaning.
Specifically, the Office of the Inspector General stated the
following:
. . . we do recommend that the Department of Labor
place greater emphasis on this issue in the
instructions provided to political appointees, who were
responsible for most of the direct procurements cited
by the Joint Committee on Printing. In particular, we
recommend that the restrictions on direct procurement
of printing and the potential consequences of
violations be incorporated in the orientation briefings
for all new political appointees. This recommendation
has been discussed with officials of OASAM's
Directorate of Administrative and Procurement Programs
who concurred and are preparing information to include
in the briefing materials. We further recommend that
political appointees receive periodic reminders of the
printing related requirements through briefings at the
executive staff meetings and/or political appointees
meetings.
Conclusion
The facts surrounding the Department of Labor's $32,000
Kinko's bill are troubling. In this matter, it is apparent that
high-level Department of Labor appointees violated the letter
and spirit of the law which they are obligated to honor. In
sum, the staff members at the Department of Labor were all too
willing to disregard internal policies and procedures intended
to protect scarce taxpayer dollars for political expediency
related to the President's State of the Union Address.
c. consistently follow congressional intent and applicable law
Another major function of the Subcommittee is ensuring that
the letter and spirit of the law is adhered to by the federal
entities within its jurisdiction. At times, circumstances arise
that are clearly inconsistent with the statutory intent
established by Congress. Fraudulent filings of information,
abuse of process by a high level federal employees and illegal
partisan activities are just some of the matters examined by
the Subcommittee and discussed below.
Fraud in the Davis-Bacon Act
For years, critics have argued that the Davis-Bacon Act
(DBA), which governs wages and benefits on federal construction
projects, mandates higher wages and benefits than those paid in
private sector construction. A recent investigation by the
Oklahoma Department of Labor uncovered fraud, waste, and abuse
in the DBA. But, not only has the Oklahoma investigation
uncovered fraudulent activities, it has also uncovered
potential criminal activities as well. The Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) and the Oklahoma State Bureau of
Investigations are currently investigating allegations of
wrongdoing in Oklahoma involving Department of Labor employees
and members of organized labor.
In keeping with its oversight responsibilities, the
Subcommittee has been investigating charges of wrongdoing in
the implementation of the DBA. The Subcommittee held hearings
in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on January 18, 1996, and in
Washington, D.C., on June 20, 1996. In addition, the
Subcommittee requested that the General Accounting Office (GAO)
review the prevailing wage process to determine if it was
susceptible to fraudulent activities. The Subcommittee also
asked the Department of Labor's Office of the Inspector General
to investigate the allegations of fraud in Oklahoma and to
audit several other states to determine if fraudulent
activities are a systemic, nationwide problem.
Current law
Passed in 1931, the DBA applies to contractors who work on
federal construction projects. It requires contractors to pay
certain ``prevailing wages'' to the various classes of laborers
and mechanics working under federal contracts. The DBA covers
direct federal construction, alteration, and repair, including
painting and decorating of public buildings or public works,
where the contract is valued at $2,000 or more.
The DBA has remained essentially unchanged since its
passage 65 years ago, with only minor amendments in 1935, 1940,
1941, and 1964. However, a greater impact has come from the
extension of Davis-Bacon requirements to a broad range of
programs involving varying degrees of federal funding (ranging
from low-income housing to Head Start programs). For example,
the Department of Labor estimates that in fiscal year 1995, the
DBA-covered construction accounted for approximately $40
billion of the $295.4 billion total dollar volume of the U.S.
construction industry or about 14 percent.
Government reports highlighted problems for years
The GAO has raised concerns about the accuracy of the
Department of Labor's wage determinations for a number of
years. The GAO issued a series of seven reports to Congress
between June 1962 and August 1970. Those reports ``pointed out
that the prevailing rates prescribed by the Department of Labor
were significantly higher than wage rates prescribed in the
areas and had substantially increased the costs of construction
to the Federal Government.'' Moreover, in 1979, the GAO issued
another report and recommended the repeal of the DBA.
In 1994, the GAO issued a follow-up report which found that
while some regulatory improvements had occurred, key concerns
noted in the 1979 GAO report remain. The 1994 GAO report noted
the potential for wage determinations to be based on low
quality data, as well as the fact that the Department of Labor
does not verify the data received, even on a sample basis.
These GAO reports underscore the inherent difficulties in
accurately administering a complex, government wage-setting
process. (The Davis-Bacon Act, GAO/HEHS-94-95R, February 7,
1994).
overview of the oklahoma investigation
In January 1995, a number of Oklahoma citizens and public
officials contacted the Oklahoma Department of Labor regarding
newly published Davis-Bacon wage rates. A comparison of the old
and new wage rates showed increases of as much as 162 percent.
These increases are passed along to taxpayers in the form of
higher costs on public construction projects like schools and
highways. Because of the overwhelming increase and concern that
Oklahoma's workers and taxpayers had been the victim of fraud
and abuse, the Oklahoma Department of Labor began an inquiry
into the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage survey process. The
Oklahoma Department of Labor produced an investigative report
entitled ``The Davis-Bacon Act, and Fraudulent Wage Data''
which was submitted to the Department of Labor and to Congress
in July 1995. The initial report by the Oklahoma Department of
Labor identified three cases of apparent fraudulent activities.
The Oklahoma Investigative Report concluded by noting that
the ``response of the U.S. Department of Labor to date has been
disappointing. Repeated requests for information solely in the
possession of the Department have been delayed or denied.''
1. Response of the committee
After learning of the Oklahoma Department of Labor
investigation, Members of the Committee met with Oklahoma
officials to learn more about their investigation. As a result
of this meeting, Chairman Goodling, and Subcommittee Chairmen
Ballenger and Hoekstra sent a letter to Department of Labor
Secretary Reich. The letter said in pertinent part:
Specifically, it has been reported to us that certain
wage rates, applicable to federally funded heavy
construction projects in some Oklahoma counties and
applicable state-funded projects pursuant to Oklahoma's
Little Davis-Bacon Act, are invalid. It is further
alleged that inaccurate information was
``intentionally'' submitted to the Department of Labor
resulting in improper and excessive tax burdens for
public construction in Oklahoma.
As part of its preliminary investigation, the Subcommittee
continued an exchange of letters with the Department of Labor
in an effort to obtain more details about the allegations of
fraud and abuse in the DBA. Subcommittee Members also met with
Wage and Hour Administrator Maria Echaveste to gain further
insight into the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage process and the
Department of Labor procedures. Because of the serious nature
of the allegations of fraud, Chairs Bill Goodling, Nancy
Kassebaum, Orrin Hatch, Henry Hyde and other interested House
and Senate Members wrote to Attorney General Janet Reno,
requesting that the Department of Justice ``place a high
priority on its on-going investigation into the Davis-Bacon Act
and related allegations of fraud in the State of Oklahoma.''
Because of concern for taxpayer funds, Subcommittee
Chairmen Pete Hoekstra and Cass Ballenger wrote to all 50
Governors and State Commissioners of Labor to inform them of
the ``. . . concerns that have come to our attention regarding
prevailing wage determinations under the Davis-Bacon Act.''
2. Subcommittee hearing on allegations of fraud in the Davis-Bacon Act
On January 18, 1996, the Subcommittees on Oversight and
Investigations and Workforce Protections conducted a joint
hearing in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to review the allegations
of fraud and abuse in the DBA. Several witnesses testified at
the hearing, including Oklahoma Department of Labor officials
and contractors. At the hearings, Oklahoma Labor Commissioner
Brenda Reneau testified regarding the State investigation of
fraud in the DBA. Her testimony revealed that:
(1) Grossly inaccurate information had been reported
to the federal government by what the Department of
Labor calls ``interested third parties'';
(2) Wage survey forms included inflated numbers of
employees on projects, inflated wage rates reported for
these same non-existent workers, and projects that were
never built;
(3) The initial investigation identified only three
cases of what appears to be fraudulent activities, and
new evidence indicates nearly 100 additional cases of a
similar nature;
(4) The Oklahoma Department of Labor repeatedly
informed officials at the Department of Labor that they
had been given false information during the survey
process. Initially, Labor officials indicated that
although they knew that inaccurate information was
submitted during surveys, they made no effort to verify
the information received; and
(5) A follow-up investigation conducted by the
Department of Labor confirms that not only was a great
deal of inaccurate information reported, but also the
Department of Labor's own documents show certain unions
in Oklahoma City as the parties who submitted the
information.
One witness who works for an Oklahoma contracting company
testified that the company did not submit any WD-10 forms to
Department of Labor for a variety of reasons. However, this
company's name appeared on 24 WD-10 forms in the 1993 Building
Construction Survey. Out of the 24 forms, the company did work
on only one of the listed projects. The witness testified that
the company had been contacted by the Oklahoma Operating
Engineers Union. The witness also testified that the union
offered to ``fill out'' the WD-10's for the construction
company, if someone from the company would just sign the forms.
the most recent reports from the general accounting office and the
oklahoma department of labor
1. The 1996 GAO report
On May 31, 1996, the GAO released a report that raised
several questions about the Act and noted that inherent process
weaknesses could contribute to a lack of confidence in the
prevailing wage rates used by the Department of Labor. The
report notes:
Labor's wage determination procedures contain
weaknesses that could permit the use of fraudulent or
inaccurate data for setting prevailing wage rates.
These weaknesses include limitations in the degree to
which Labor verifies the accuracy of the survey wage
and fringe benefit data it receives, limited computer
capabilities and safeguards to review wage data before
calculating prevailing wage rates, and an appeals
process that may not be well publicized. Labor's
failure to prevent the use of fraudulent or inaccurate
data may result in wages and fringe benefits being paid
to construction workers that are lower than those
prevailing. Erroneous prevailing wage rates could also
lead to excessive government construction costs and
undermine confidence in the system among survey
respondents, reducing their future participation.
This report buttressed the conclusions of the Oklahoma
Department of Labor that the Act's prevailing wage process is a
candidate for fraudulent activity. The events and circumstances
in Oklahoma reinforce the warnings issued by a series of GAO
reports for over 30 years. The GAO reports highlight the
inherent difficulties in administering a complex, government-
mandated wage-setting system.
2. The 1996 Oklahoma report
On May 24, 1996, the Oklahoma Department of Labor released
a new report regarding specific concerns about the Department
of Labor's role in the allegations of fraud in the DBA. The
Oklahoma Department of Labor report alleges that the Department
of Labor:
(1) Failed to be forthcoming with information related
to the fraud investigation;
(2) Knew the breadth and depth of Davis-Bacon
problems, while denying these problems existed;
(3) Stonewalled the Oklahoma investigation; and
(4) Provided information to the Speaker of the House
and to other Members of Congress that was inconsistent
with other public documents.
The report, based on an extensive review of public
documents, reveals ``that officials within the Department of
Labor may have played an active role in wrongfully inflating
federal prevailing wage rates at the expense of taxpayers and
for the benefit of favored officials within organized labor.''
Additional reviews
As a result of these two new reports, the Subcommittees on
Oversight and Investigations and Workforce Protections
conducted a second hearing on June 20, 1996, so that Members
could learn first hand of the problems with the prevailing wage
process, as well as allegations of potential wrongdoing by the
lead government agency in charge of setting wages and benefits
for federal construction projects. Testifying at the hearing
were Ms. Carlotta C. Joyner, Director of Education and
Employment Issues for the GAO, Oklahoma Commissioner of Labor
Brenda Reneau and Deputy Commissioner of Labor Jeff Lester.
The Department of Labor agreed that there were ``data
weaknesses'' in the prevailing wage surveys used in Oklahoma
and issued a redetermination of the prevailing wage rates in
April 1996.
Currently, the Department of Labor's Office of the
Inspector General is conducting a review of several states to
determine if prevailing wage programs have been subject to
potentially fraudulent and possibly criminal activity.
Conclusion
Based on the two separate investigative reports submitted
to the Committee by the Oklahoma Department of Labor and the
May 1996 GAO report, it is obvious that the Davis-Bacon
prevailing wage process in Oklahoma is fatally flawed. Years of
research have demonstrated that there is substantial cost
associated with the Davis-Bacon Act. It essentially requires
contractors to pay higher than market wages and benefits on
federal construction projects at the expense of the American
taxpayers. Editorial writers throughout the country have
repeatedly characterized the law as special interest
legislation designed to protect one group of beneficiaries at
the expense of other construction workers, contractors, and
taxpayers.
Coupled with these findings are the two reviews conducted
by the Oklahoma Department of Labor. The first review focused
on the specific cases of fraud and exposed the fact that in one
instance a wage survey was based on an underground storage tank
that was never constructed. The second review conducted by the
Oklahoma Department of Labor was even more revealing than the
first--charging the Department of Labor with failure to be
forthcoming with information, deceit, stonewalling, and
providing information to the Congress that was inconsistent
with other public documents.
Politicization of the Government shutdown
After receiving some very serious complaints concerning the
shutdown of programs under the Committee's jurisdiction during
the lapse in appropriations that occurred in late 1995 and
early 1996, the Subcommittee began a thorough examination of
the shutdown at the Departments of Education and Labor. The
findings raised serious concerns that the recent government
shutdown violated applicable law and, in many ways, had the
appearance of political calculation by the Clinton
Administration.
This shutdown, coupled with the public statements of the
Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, had the effect of raising
fear in American workers concerning their safety in the
workplace. Additionally, financial strains were placed on State
and local educational agencies unnecessarily and possibly
illegally through the actions of the Secretary of Education,
Richard Riley.
A brief summary of the applicable law concerning government
shutdowns due to the lack of an appropriation will serve as a
backdrop to the inappropriate actions of these two Secretaries.
Brief background on the applicable law
The Antideficiency Act prohibits government officials from
incurring obligations or authorizing expenditures and contracts
in excess or advance of appropriations unless authorized by
law. Certain activities are ``excepted'' from suspension and
are therefore authorized to continue during gaps in
appropriated funding. These include:
1. Providing for national security;
2. Providing benefit payments and performing
obligations under appropriations or funding not subject
to the delayed appropriation; and
3. Conducting activities that protect human life and
property.
The scope and applicability of this law is well briefed in
memoranda and past opinions of the Attorney General's office--
commonly known as the Civiletti and Dellinger Memoranda.
Shutdown of the Department of Labor
Secretary of Labor Reich furloughed nearly all of the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) job
safety inspectors during the recent government shutdown. By
this decision, Secretary Reich in essence determined that there
was ``no reasonable likelihood that the safety of human life or
the protection of property would be compromised, in some
significant degree. . . .'' 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1342 as amended,
interpreted in Memorandum for Alice Rivlin from Walter
Dellinger, August 16, 1995. However, rather than reassure the
public that these employees are not necessary ``in some
significant degree'' to the ``safety of human life,'' Secretary
Reich was quoted as saying,
[in] a peculiar twist befitting the interests of this
Congress, we will be prohibited from carrying on our
normal duties to prevent tragedies in the workplace . .
. [w]e will only be able to respond after these
tragedies have occurred.
This quote directly contradicts Secretary Reich's decision not
to have these employees excepted under the Antideficiency Act
and only served to create fear and confusion among American
workers. At the same time, it wrongly implied that furlough
decisions are in the hands of Congress.
Simply put, Secretary Reich furloughed these employees
knowing that there was an imminent risk to human life, in which
case he was jeopardizing the safety of American workers, or he
determined that these furloughed OSHA inspectors were not
essential to the protection of human life, in which case he was
being less than candid with the media by raising concerns about
impending ``tragedies in the workplace.''
On November 29, 1996, a letter was sent to Secretary of
Labor Reich, by Chairmen Goodling, Hoekstra and Ballenger,
asking the Secretary to explain and provide documentation on
the contradiction between Secretary Reich's furlough decisions
and his public statements. Subsequently, the Committee received
a response from the Department of Labor that failed to provide
any of the requested documentation and which made no attempt to
reconcile Secretary Reich's public statements with his furlough
decisions. Instead, the Department of Labor ``reinterpreted''
the word ``imminent'' by relying on the imminent danger clause
of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
In short, Secretary Reich's response did little to
alleviate the Committee's concern that the furlough decisions
at the Department of Labor were political and were targeted at
groups that had vocal and active constituencies. Secretary
Reich's public statements and furlough decisions can only be
explained in political terms. In the future, Secretary Reich or
whomever is serving as Secretary must either deem OSHA
employees as excepted or he/she should publicly reassure
workers that there is no imminent risk to human life by having
these employees furloughed.
Shutdown of the Department of Education
Nearly every program at the Department of Education was
suspended during the government shutdown and most employees
were furloughed. However, because most of the Department of
Education's programs are forward or alternatively funded
(meaning that current payments to grantees (schools, students,
etc.) are made from funds appropriated in the prior fiscal year
and that personnel related to those programs could not be
employed pursuant to the Civiletti and Dellinger Memoranda), it
appears that the Department of Education irresponsibly and
possibly illegally chose to withhold funds that had already
been appropriated by Congress signed into law by the President,
and obligated to the States and localities (mostly in fiscal
year 1995). These funding delays were unnecessary, since the
government shutdown should only have applied to operations
lacking current funding, which, in this case, are those
programs awaiting a fiscal year 1996 appropriation. In more
technical terms, these delays had the appearance of the
impoundment of government funds by the Executive Branch.
In essence, the Department of Education held hostage 1995
education money to force compromise on the 1996 appropriation,
to increase the impact of the shutdown on as many individuals
and institutions as possible, and to further the Clinton
Administration's overall agenda. Furthermore, because of the
Cash Management Improvement Act, which requires penalties for
late payments on prior obligations, the Department of Education
may have recklessly wasted education money on fines and
penalties instead of the education of children.
The Committee raised these concerns with Secretary of
Education Riley in a letter signed by Chairman Bill Goodling
and Subcommittee Chairman Pete Hoekstra dated November 28,
1995. This letter also requested background documentation
concerning the Secretary's furlough decisions. The Secretary of
Education responded promptly and included several documents
that had been requested. Unfortunately, the Secretary's
response completely misstated the interpretation of the
Antideficiency Act's handling of alternatively funded programs,
specifically, the provision that such programs can continue
operating despite the lack of a current appropriation to fund
the administration of such programs.
Of even greater concern is that the Department of Education
included in its initial response a letter from its own General
Counsel, Judith Winston, to the Attorney General asking him to
confirm the General Counsel's opinion that forward funded
programs at the Department of Education should not be suspended
by the lack of a current appropriation. Since no response from
the Attorney General was included and since no other
documentation concerning this opinion was provided, the
Committee must conclude that the Department of Education not
only went against every recent interpretation of the
Antideficiency Act, but also went against or ignored the
opinion of its own legal counsel--an unprecedented action, one
which raised further concerns about the Clinton
Administration's handling of the government shutdown.
The Committee sent a follow-up letter to the Department of
Education on December 18, 1995, which again restated the law,
and pointed out the opinion of the Department of Education's
own General Counsel, which was in total agreement with the
position of the Committee. The letter concluded by demanding
that the Department of Education begin obligating funds as
required by law.
Three days later, on December 21, 1995, the Department of
Education sent a letter to the Committee stating in relevant
part that:
The Department is taking steps to authorize the
necessary staff to return to work to perform this
activity [operate alternatively funded programs] . . .
this authorization applies to payments for programs
with budget authority currently available from prior
year appropriations.
While this letter confirmed the validity of the Committee's
position, and allowed many Department of Education employees
who were wrongfully furloughed to return to work, it only
heightened the Committee's concern that the Administration was
not handling the government shutdown in accordance with
applicable law.
In conclusion, the Committee remains concerned that the
intent of the Antideficiency Act was not followed by either the
Department of Labor or the Department of Education.
Furthermore, these actions put the education of American
students and the safety of American workers in jeopardy. In
short, politics was apparently placed above sound public policy
by the Clinton Administration.
Abuse of power at the Department of Labor
Over the course of the last two years, allegations have
been made that political appointees within the Clinton
Administration have used their positions to influence matters
involving interested third parties. While some of these
allegations simply involve parties unhappy with the
Administration's legitimate disposition of a relevant matter,
the case leading up to the dismissal of Mr. Richard F. Sawyer
is a remarkable study in the damage that can be done when
inappropriate selections are made for high-level positions at
an executive agency.
Mr. Sawyer, a Secretary's Representative at the United
States Department of Labor, abused the power of his office by
attempting to exert undue influence in an ongoing labor dispute
between Somers Building Maintenance, Inc. (Somers), a
janitorial services company located in northern California, and
the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). These facts
are demonstrated in a detailed investigative report prepared by
the Department of Labor's Office of the Inspector General.
Background
1. Somers Building Maintenance, Inc. and the SEIU
Somers is a janitorial services contractor headquartered in
Sacramento, California, with offices throughout northern
California and Oregon. Somers is the largest non-union
janitorial contractor in Sacramento and currently employs over
600 people.
The SEIU is the fourth largest and fastest growing union in
America with more than one million members working in health
care, government, and private industry. The SEIU was engaged in
efforts to organize janitorial workers at Somers. This
campaign, which was initiated against Somers by SEIU Local 1877
in mid-1994, is still a part of the SEIU's national organizing
campaign known as ``Justice for Janitors.''
2. Department of Labor's wage and hour investigation of Somers
Coincident with the SEIU campaign to organize the
janitorial workers of Somers in late 1994, as part of a
national initiative designed to target past violators of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Department of Labor's Wage
and Hour Division began a proactive investigation of possible
FLSA violations at Somers. In the midst of this investigation,
Mr. Richard Sawyer became involved.
3. Mr. Richard F. Sawyer
On January 9, 1994, Mr. Richard F. Sawyer was appointed to
the position of Secretary's Representative with the Department
of Labor's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental
Affairs. Prior to his appointment, Mr. Sawyer was employed as a
Business Manager, Central Labor Council of Santa Clara and San
Benito Counties, AFL-CIO, from March 1986 until January 1994.
From March 1973 to March 1986, Mr. Sawyer was an SEIU
representative in Everett, Washington.
The position of Secretary's Representative is located in
the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs,
Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, Regional Intergovernmental
Affairs Office, with the duty station in one of the 10
Department of Labor regions. As defined by the Department of
Labor, the duties and responsibilities of the Secretary's
Representative include:
undertakes a variety of special non-recurring
confidential and politically sensitive assignments
based upon an understanding of the Administration goals
and the Secretary's policies, as well as utilization of
own personal and extended experience in labor-related
affairs.
allegations of misconduct
Allegations concerning Mr. Sawyer were made on June 27,
1995, by Mr. Randall Schaber, a member of the Board of
Directors for Somers. At that time, Mr. Schaber provided
evidence of a formal complaint that he, on behalf of Somers,
had filed with the Department of Labor's Office of the
Inspector General alleging misconduct and ethical violations of
Executive Order No. 12674, on the part of Mr. Sawyer.
In his complaint, Mr. Schaber alleged that Mr. Sawyer had
``conducted himself in a manner that was intended to induce and
coerce Somers to enter into a recognition agreement and/or a
collective bargaining agreement with SEIU Local 1877 under the
penalty of having the Department of Labor continue its
investigation of alleged wage and hour violations and impose a
fine of an extraordinary amount for said violations and seize
goods produced by clients of Somers under the hot goods
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.'' In support of his
formal complaint, Mr. Schaber provided a detailed chronology of
events including information regarding a telephone conversation
between Mr. Sawyer, and Somer's largest client, Hewlett-
Packard.
On June 27, 1995, Mr. Schaber filed another formal
complaint, which he directed to the Department of Labor's
Office of the Inspector General through Mr. Michael A. Hackard,
an attorney representing Somers. In his complaint, Mr. Hackard
requested that the Office of the Inspector General conduct an
investigation of the Sawyer matter, citing ``serious breaches
of governmental ethics and probable violations of federal
criminal law including, but not limited to, violations of the
Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act
[and] violations of the Hobbs Act, Mail Fraud, Conspiracy and
Bribery.''
Subsequently, on July 10, 1995, 18 Members of Congress
signed a letter requesting an investigation into allegations of
``an apparent conspiracy to coerce non-union building
maintenance contractors into signing union contracts against
the will of their employees.''
Actions by the Oversight Subcommittee
In December 1995, the Subcommittee initiated a preliminary
investigation into the allegations concerning Mr. Sawyer and
Somers. After conducting several interviews and concluding that
such allegations merited further examination, the Subcommittee
sent a formal letter of inquiry to Secretary of Labor Robert B.
Reich on December 14, 1995. In this letter, the Subcommittee
reiterated the allegations contained in Mr. Schaber's complaint
and conveyed the gravity with which the Subcommittee held the
allegations:
This Subcommittee and others are extraordinarily
troubled by the seriousness of these allegations. They
suggest strongly that a high-level Department of Labor
official was attempting to use his political influence
to coerce Somers into signing a union contract by
putting pressure upon Hewlett-Packard. These
allegations also raise concerns regarding serious
breaches of ethics, abuse of power, collusion, and the
misuse of federal funds by a Department of Labor
employee.
The letter requested that the Department of Labor conduct a
``prompt and thorough review of the allegations'' and provide
Members with the findings of such review and any planned
actions by January 12, 1996.
On December 21, 1995, Solicitor of Labor Thomas S.
Williamson responded to the letter on behalf of Secretary of
Labor Reich. In that letter, Solicitor Williamson indicated
that his office had consulted with the Office of the Inspector
General and confirmed that there was, in fact, an active and
ongoing investigation. In addition, Mr. Williamson indicated
that while his office believed it had identified the Department
of Labor official involved, it did not ``wish to risk any
possibility of inadvertent interference with the [Office of the
Inspector General's] investigation--'' and, therefore, would .
. . withhold any final action pending the conclusion of the
Office of the Inspector General's investigation. In the
interim, however, Mr. Williamson indicated that the Department
of Labor had decided to place the official involved under
administrative leave (with pay), pending completion of the
Office of the Inspector General's investigation. During this
time, the official would be relieved of all official duties and
have no authority to act on behalf of the Department of Labor.
Final Report of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Labor
On February 28, 1996, the Department of Labor's Office of
the Inspector General completed its 500-hour investigation into
the matter involving Somers and Mr. Sawyer. After reviewing the
Office of the Inspector General's final report, the
Subcommittee sent a letter on March 1, 1996, to Secretary of
Labor Reich. In this letter, the Subcommittee conveyed its
concerns over the findings of the Office of the Inspector
General stating:
We are greatly concerned by the [Office of the Inspector
General's] Report. Based upon that Report it appears that Mr.
Sawyer:
(1) Misused his position and aided the Service
Employees International Union (SEIU) in its attempt to
organize janitorial services of Somers;
(2) Contacted Hewlett-Packard, which is one of Somers
largest clients, and disclosed investigative
information which was damaging to Somers; and
(3) Influenced the Department of Labor's Wage and
Hour Division in an attempt to intimidate Somers into
recognizing the SEIU.
The Subcommittee also conveyed its concerns over
information included in the Office of the Inspector General's
report suggesting that several other Department of Labor
officials, including high-ranking officials within the
Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division, had not only been
aware of Mr. Sawyer's actions, but also may have supported or
encouraged these actions.
In March 1996, the Subcommittee was advised that Mr. Sawyer
was no longer employed by the Department of Labor. On that same
day, the Subcommittee responded by sending a letter to
Secretary Reich requesting information relating to the
Department of Labor's response to the Office of the Inspector
General's investigation and documentation pertaining to Mr.
Sawyer's termination. The Department of Labor's response was
provided to the Subcommittee in a letter dated April 1, 1996,
from the Acting Solicitor of Labor, J. Davitt McAteer.
On April 25, 1996, the Subcommittee held a hearing on
Somers and the alleged misconduct by Mr. Sawyer. Testifying at
the hearing were Mr. Schaber and Mr. Charles C. Masten,
Inspector General at the Department of Labor.
Conclusion
Based on the Office of the Inspector General's
investigation and the testimony of other witnesses at the
hearing, it is obvious that Mr. Richard F. Sawyer abused his
position as the Secretary's Representative by intervening on
behalf of the SEIU in its campaign to organize the janitorial
workers of Somers. This information establishes several
irrefutable facts:
(1) Mr. Sawyer contacted officials of Hewlett-
Packard, Somers' largest client, and specifically
discussed the Department of Labor's active and on-going
investigation of Somers.
(2) Mr. Sawyer contacted the Department of Labor's
Wage and Hour investigators to request information on
the status of the Somers' investigation and to complain
about the progress of said investigation.
(3) Mr. Sawyer improperly provided the SEIU with
specific information regarding the Department of
Labor's active and on-going investigation of Somers--
information that was used by the SEIU both privately
and publicly to pressure Somers to capitulate to the
union's organizational demands.
(4) Mr. Sawyer contacted high-ranking officials
within the Wage and Hour Division's national office to
complain about the progress of the Somers'
investigation.
(5) In response to Mr. Sawyer's repeated contacts,
high-ranking officials within the Wage and Hour
Division's national office assigned five additional
investigators to the Somers' investigation and directed
investigators to give Somers special attention.
(6) The Somers' investigation was kept open well
beyond the point the lead Wage and Hour investigator
deemed warranted by the facts.
(7) Despite the involvement of no less than six
investigators and 500 hours of investigative work, the
Wage and Hour Division discovered only $317.44 in FLSA
violations.
These facts clearly illustrate that Mr. Sawyer was engaged
in a conscious effort to use his position as the regional
representative of Labor Secretary Robert Reich to assist his
former employer, the SEIU, in its efforts to organize the
janitorial workers of Somers. As such, the Subcommittee
believes it wholly appropriate that Mr. Sawyer's employment
with the Department of Labor was terminated.
The Subcommittee also remains concerned about the extent to
which other Department of Labor employees had knowledge of,
supported or assisted Mr. Sawyer in his efforts to coerce
Somers into signing a union contract with the SEIU. As noted
previously, Mr. Sawyer's position as a Secretary's
Representative falls under the purview of the Office of
Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs and his official
Department of Labor job description clearly states that the
``Incumbent reports directly to the Director of the Office of
Intergovernmental Affairs * * * [and] consults with the
Director on decisions or matters which appropriately require
personal attention.'' Based on this description of Mr. Sawyer's
supervisory controls, it is reasonable to expect that high-
level Departmental officers, like the Director of the Office of
Intergovernmental Affairs would have been aware of Mr. Sawyer's
actions concerning Somers. It is also reasonable to assume that
Ms. Geri Palast, Assistant Secretary of Congressional and
Intergovernmental Affairs, would also have knowledge of Mr.
Sawyer's actions. If not, the Subcommittee cannot help but
question the efficacy of the Department of Labor's supervisory
controls with respect to the Secretary's Representatives.
The Subcommittee has similar concerns regarding the extent
to which officials within the Department of Labor's Wage and
Hour Division had knowledge of, supported or assisted Mr.
Sawyer in his efforts to coerce Somers into signing a
collective bargaining agreement with SEIU. In particular are
concerns regarding the extent to which Ms. Maria Echaveste,
Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, was aware of,
encouraged, or facilitated Mr. Sawyer's actions.
As previously noted, senior Wage and Hour Division
officials responded to Mr. Sawyer's meddling by assigning an
additional five investigators to the Somers case. In total,
Wage and Hour personnel devoted no less than 500 hours to the
investigation. In doing so, the Department of Labor far
exceeded the number of investigative hours devoted to any of
the other top ten Wage and Hour investigations that were closed
during fiscal year 1995--the largest involved only 386
investigative hours. Certainly, any case that would merit this
level of Wage and Hour activity must have had the attention and
scrutiny of the Division's most senior official, Ms. Echaveste.
At best, these facts call into question whether or not Ms.
Echaveste is administering the Department of Labor's Wage and
Hour Division in the most effective and efficient manner
possible under the watchful eye of the Secretary of Labor. At
worst, these facts belie Ms. Echaveste's contentions that she
neither encouraged nor supported Mr. Sawyer's coercion of
Somers. The fact that Ms. Echaveste approved, directly or
otherwise, both the expansion and extension of the Somers case
beyond the point at which the lead investigator deemed the
facts warranted suggests that she did, in fact, collude with
Mr. Sawyer and representatives of the SEIU.
Partisan political activities and the Central Oversight Group
The Subcommittee became aware that the Department of Labor
created a Central Oversight Group (COG) to coordinate responses
to anticipated congressional oversight and to review programs
under the Department of Labor's jurisdiction. The COG was
created, according to the Department of Labor, only to ``gather
routine information in a short time frame to prepare the
Secretary for congressional hearings and to respond to
congressional inquiries.'' However, the activities of the COG,
went well beyond what was reported repeatedly by the Department
of Labor to Congress. Instead, the COG was the genesis for the
preparation and distribution of highly political documents in
apparent violation of applicable law.
Who participated in the COG
The COG was comprised of more than 60 career and political
appointees representing each of the major programs and offices
at the Department of Labor. Many of the Assistant Secretaries
were assigned to the COG and Agency Defensive Coordinators
would meet weekly to monitor the COG's progress, identify and
solve problems, provide direction where necessary and discuss
cross-cutting issues.
Political charts and documents
On March 28, 1995, the Subcommittee requested copies of all
the materials that were prepared under the umbrella of the COG.
A careful analysis of the documents provided demonstrated that
a number of the documents prepared by the COG did not fall
under the guise of ``normal and proper governmental activity.''
Indeed, the Subcommittee became concerned that certain
documents prepared by the COG were in violation of numerous
laws.
In an effort to ensure that a thorough and objective legal
review was conducted of some of the materials in question that
were prepared by the COG, the Subcommittee requested the CRS to
conduct a legal review of the following four COG documents:
(1) Battleground 94-Democratic Strategic Analysis;
(2) Females Voting for Democrats, by Education;
(3) Males Voting for Democrats, by Education; and
(4) Who Gains from the Republican Contract?
In response to this request, CRS, in its October 27, 1995
memorandum entitled ``Use of Federal Agency Appropriations for
Preparation of `Political' Documents'', noted:
The preparation of material by federal officers or
employees on official time, or otherwise paid for,
procured or printed with federal funds, when such
material is partisan political in nature and intended
to assist a particular political party or candidate,
may implicate a potential violation of several federal
statutes, regulations and ethical guidelines.
CRS went on to say with regard to the particular documents
prepared by the COG:
If the material in question were prepared by
department officials or employees on official duty
time, on government premises, with government resources
and equipment, or otherwise paid for, printed or
reproduced with government funds, . . . The material in
question, on its face, appears to be classical partisan
political, campaign research and analysis. The material
analyzes voting patterns for Democratic candidates and
discusses issues which the ``Democrats will have to
address . . . [to] reassure voters.''
Based on the CRS opinion, the Department of Labor, by
preparing, reproducing, and distributing the COG documents in
question, engaged in partisan political activities--a direct
violation of federal law.
The clandestine role of the Secretary of Labor
It is important to note that the violations of law
attributed to the production, reproduction, and distribution of
the COG documents in question extends not only to those
involved with the COG regularly, but to the Secretary of Labor
himself.
In evaluating the activities of the COG, Congress requested
all relevant documents, including an explanation of how the
four documents in question were used. Never did the Department
of Labor reveal that the Secretary himself used some of the
documents that CRS found to be in violation of applicable law.
Through independent sources, the Subcommittee obtained a copy
of a hand-written note by Secretary Reich to Mr. Jack Donahue,
the former Assistant Secretary for Policy and Counselor to the
Secretary at the Department, which demonstrates that the
Secretary was, at a minimum, well aware of the documents being
prepared by the COG and, in fact, instructed Mr. Donahue to
make copies of these illegally prepared documents for his
public use.
Teenage drug use on the rise: Four years of failure
On September 26, 1996, the Subcommittee on early Childhood,
Youth and Families and the Subcommittee on National Security,
International Affairs and Criminal Justice of the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight (Subcommittees) held a joint
hearing on the Epidemic of Teenage Drug Use. The Subcommittees
learned that during the last four years there has been a
horrifying increase in teen-drug use.
During this hearing, the Subcommittees learned about
private initiatives utilized by various Members of Congress who
either established or supported existing community anti-drug
coalitions. The first witness of the hearing, Representative
Portman, cited the success of Miami's comprehensive community
anti-drug coalition that cut usage in Miami to half that of the
national average. What the successful programs do, he
continued, is mobilize ``parents, businesses, religious
leaders, students, law enforcement, the media and others to
fashion a comprehensive long-term strategy to prevent and treat
substance abuse one person at a time.''
Furthermore, the Subcommittees learned that, despite
tremendous improvements in slowing the rate of teen-drug use
during the 1980's, new reports by the Department of Health and
Human Services' Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration have shed new light on the dramatic failures of
the last four years in continuing the progress made during the
Reagan and Bush Administrations in ridding our schools of
illegal drugs. The Subcommittees began investigating the impact
of the mixed-messages sent to teens about drug use over the
last four years, and whether this lax attitude has been
communicated to students through federal drug education
programs. The Subcommittees are concerned that more money spent
on the wrong message has led to higher drug use.
D. establish a framework for policy initiatives
Although the Subcommittee lacks legislative authority, it
does play a role in identifying areas ripe for legislation. One
major project initiated by the Subcommittee involves the
present and future state of education throughout the United
States. This effort was intended, among other things, to
determine the number of education programs available throughout
the federal government and the value added to education
programs by the operation of the Department of Education. The
Subcommittee also gave consideration to merging several
departments in an effort to reduce duplication, enhance their
usefulness and to the concepts of school choice.
760 Project--Excellence in Education: What Works? and What's Wasted?
In 1996, the Subcommittee devised the most comprehensive
list of federal education programs that has ever been compiled.
The Subcommittee found that there are over 760 federal
education programs which span 39 agencies, commissions, and
boards that cost the taxpayer $120 billion (based upon fiscal
year 1995 figures). Each of these programs have been designated
as educational by either the President's Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) or Congressional Research Service (CRS).
The General Accounting Office report on schools and
workplaces
In early 1995, the Subcommittee requested that the General
Accounting Office (GAO) conduct a review of what works in
schools and workplaces throughout the country. GAO began its
research by reviewing existing research on best practices in
schools and the workplace. After extensive review, the GAO
compiled a detailed bibliography of this research. Each
bibliography entry features the author, practice, setting,
source of information, findings and conclusions, and final
comments. The scope of this study was based upon specific
criteria. For schools, the criteria was 1) student achievement
at or above the expected level, 2) high teacher and student
engagement in learning activities, and 3) effectiveness in
overcoming academic disadvantages among students. For the
workplace, the criteria was 1) increased profitability, 2)
improved productivity, and 3) high performance in the
workplace.
The GAO found that successful schools encourage parental
involvement and collaboration with and among staff, foster
leadership for instructional improvement, and authorize school-
level problem solving. They also noted that these schools
provide safe and orderly sites which in turn promotes fewer
distractions. In terms of curriculum and instruction,
successful schools establish academically rigorous and well-
focused curricula, provide effective and engaging instruction,
and ensure that students who need extra assistance are given
opportunities for success.
Successful workplaces typically develop a set of core
organizational values which are then transmitted to all
employees, foster a sense of community throughout the
organization, and encourage meaningful employee participation
in the workplace. In addition, successful companies tend to
adopt human resource policies that feature minimal job
disruption and provide education and training programs for
their employees. They also tend to engage in profit-sharing and
gain-sharing plans.
The Subcommittee found the GAO report to be an excellent
vehicle to forward the message that good things are happening
all over the United States in both schools and workplaces. In
schools all over the country, students are beating the odds and
graduating with profitable skills and companies are improving
the workplace in hopes of building worker confidence, self-
esteem, and loyalty which will result in higher productivity.
Leading edge practices in education: What works in Chicago
On May 19, 1995 in Chicago Illinois, the Subcommittee held
a hearing on ``Leading Edge Practices in Learning'' and visited
local schools, including Our Lady of the Gardens Elementary
School. The Subcommittee observed very successful educational
programs and practices which required little in financial
resources.
In 1988, the city passed sweeping educational reform
legislation in order to improve Chicago's school system. The
1988 Chicago School Reform Act was designed to decentralize the
Chicago Public Schools and place control with the individual
communities. Since implementation of these reforms, principals
are more accountable to the Local School Councils and they
receive greater control over school budgets, the physical
plant, and recruitment and hiring of personnel.
Departmental reorganization
In the age of an intrusive and bureaucratic federal
government, many have questioned the role of the Department of
Education and the Department of Labor. Consequently, the
Committee held two hearings regarding the federal role in
education, the possible merger of federal departments, and use
of block grants.
On June 5, 1995, the Committee held a hearing to provide a
historical overview of the Department of Education, the
Department of Labor, and the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission. This hearing also gave the Committee Members the
opportunity to review the Back to Basics Education Reform Act.
The second hearing, on July 21, 1995, focused primarily on the
Department of Labor and the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission merger.
As a result of these hearings, it became apparent that
little was known about the operations, activities, and costs of
the off-site offices maintained by the Department of Education
and the Department of Labor. Additionally, it was determined
that the Department of Labor itself was unaware of the number
of off-site offices it maintained. Consequently, the GAO
independently prepared a report illustrating, among other
things, the sheer magnitude of federal funds expended on off-
site offices by the Department of Education and the Department
of Labor. For example, the GAO reported:
In fiscal year 1995, the Departments of Education and
Labor had a field structure composed of 1,146 field
offices and 22,000 authorized staff positions assigned
to the offices.
These hearings served as potent reminders that the
Department of Education and the Department of Labor have a
fiduciary responsibility to every taxpayer. The Committee is
committed to fulfilling its responsibility to ensure that the
taxpayers hard earned dollars are spent more responsibly.
Oversight of the DC public schools
Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, as a part of his
government-wide reform efforts, promised to make oversight of
the District of Columbia one of his first priorities in the
104th Congress. This led to the establishment of a Speaker's
Task Force on the District of Columbia, which included several
Members from several committees, each charged with oversight of
particular aspects of the City's operations (housing, welfare,
taxes, education, etc.) The Subcommittee held hearings
regarding the needs of D.C. schools.
The D.C. Public Schools have an annual budget of over $700
million--$70 million of which is provided in federal grants
(e.g., Title I, Spec. Ed., etc.). While the District is unable
to ascertain the number of students enrolled, enrollment is
estimated to be anywhere between 70,000 and 85,000 students.
Spending could be as high as $11,000 per pupil, which makes the
District near the top of the country in spending per pupil.
Despite this fact, student achievement and facilities
maintenance continue to deteriorate.
It is estimated that only 56 percent of students that start
the 10th grade in the D.C. Public School system receive their
diplomas. There is an 8.2 percent annual dropout rate. In 1994,
the average score on the verbal portion of the SAT was 333 for
D.C. students compared to a national average of 423. Likewise,
the average score on the math portion was only 373, over one-
hundred points lower than the national average of 479. On the
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP tests) the
District lagged all other states in 4th grade reading and 8th
grade math proficiencies.
At the same time, the District has experienced repeated
delays in opening its schools due to fire code violations and
various problems with its facilities. The General Accounting
Office (GAO) has estimated the cost of repairing D.C.'s
existing facilities at over $460 million--approximately $90
million of which constitutes fire code violations. The District
currently spends approximately $100 million annually on
maintenance of its facilities. The average age of a D.C. Public
School is 50 years.
In short, there is a real educational crisis in urban
education generally, and in D.C. in particular.
Hearings
The Subcommittee convened three hearings on the D.C. Public
Schools in May and June 1995. These hearings included members
of the D.C. City Council, a spokesperson for the Mayor, the
Superintendent, the President of the Board of Education,
business groups, parents, and community leaders. In addition,
the Subcommittee sought information from outside sources
including principals from successful schools and school
districts in other urban areas and from private businesses and
scholars for reform ideas.
The goal of the hearings was to get detailed, first hand
information on the problems in the D.C. Public Schools and
their effect on the education of children. Secondly, the
hearings sought to begin a dialogue on possible reform efforts
that could alleviate the current state of crisis. Finally, the
Subcommittee hoped that the continual involvement of each of
the key parties involved in the system would lead to a
consensus for prudent reform.
School choice
Milwaukee, Wisconsin and Cleveland, Ohio are the only
cities in America currently operating school choice programs
that allow low-income families to send their children to
private schools under a State-sponsored voucher program.
Additionally, the entire state of Vermont for several decades
has maintained a tuition reimbursement program for high school
students residing in rural areas to attend the school of their
choice.
On October 23, 1995, the Subcommittee held a hearing in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin on its private school choice program. This
hearing included witnesses from the State and local government,
parents, community activists, scholars, and school leaders. The
hearing highlighted the importance of urban education and the
need to force change in urban schools. There was a broad
consensus that giving parents the power to choose their
children's school would not only benefit their children in the
short term, but would also lead to improved public schools in
the long term.
The Subcommittee remains committed to tracking Milwaukee's
experience with educational choice, as with other reform
efforts around the country.
E. Provides for a Federal Role Only Where Absolutely Necessary
Over the years, the federal government continued to grow
and to play a more prominent role in the lives of Americans and
their businesses. During the last several Congresses, Americans
saw an explosion of new laws being implemented by agencies and
departments of the federal government which affected the way in
which they conducted their businesses. With this explosion came
the related costs of implementing and monitoring compliance by
the business community with these new laws. As a result, the
Subcommittee began a review of the costs of regulations.
Review of government regulation
On February 2, 1995, the Subcommittee held a hearing to
examine the costs and benefits of federal regulations. The
Subcommittee received oral testimony from Dr. Gallaway,
Professor of Economics, Ohio University, Dr. Hahn, Scholar, the
American Enterprise Institute, Dr. Hopkins, Professor of
Economics, Rochester Institute of Technology, and Brenda
Efinger, Hamlet Response Coalition.
This hearing uncovered that government regulation, however
effectively designed or well intentioned, imposes significant
costs on those regulated and indirectly on the rest of society.
Many of the costs related to regulations are obvious and
measurable, while others are hidden and difficult to quantify.
At this hearing, several economists presented their accounting
of federal regulations.
Economics of regulation
A February 2, 1995 hearing held by the Subcommittee noted
that regulation increases the price of labor, which causes
employers to hire fewer employees or to decrease wages to
account for the added cost of their compliance with these
regulations. While some of these costs are offset by improved
working conditions for employees, it is unclear whether the
employees would, if given the option, choose the improved
conditions over their lost wages or their own (or their co-
workers) loss of employment. Because the effects of regulations
are hidden, many workers are unaware that they bear much of the
cost of compliance without being allowed any choice over the
matter.
The Center for the Study of American Business summarized
the economic costs of regulation as follows:
Regulation costs the taxpayer in increased taxes to support
regulatory bureaucracy; the consumer in higher prices to cover
the expense of regulation; the worker in lost jobs and lower
wages; the economy in the loss of small businesses due to
compliance costs; and society in the loss of new and better
products, and lower standards of living.
While this may be an oversimplification, the bottom line is
that regulation costs money.
The trend toward increased regulation
Two of the economists testified that the beneficial returns
to regulation have been steadily decreasing since the early
part of this century. While not universally accepted, it is
thought that with the onset of the industrial revolution, there
may have been many business excesses that lent themselves
easily to the corrective nature of regulation. As the economy
became more advanced, however, many of these once corrective
laws became burdensome and unnecessary.
While the return to regulation has been steadily
decreasing, these economists noted that the desire to regulate
has not. Probably the most disturbing testimony from our
economists concerned the recent trend toward increased
regulation. As measured in the following three ways, budgets of
regulatory agencies, staff size of regulatory agencies, and
numbers of pages in the Federal Register (where new regulations
are written), regulation is once again on the rise. While these
three measures are anecdotal, they are a fairly consistent
indication of income and employment. Specifically, increases in
regulation have been correlated with decreases in incomes and
employment. Recent passage of new regulations (Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), Civil Rights Act of 1990, Family
Medical Leave Act (FMLA)) and the continued implementation of
new rules for existing regulations, will drive down both income
and employment.
Economy wide costs of regulation
Regulations impose significant costs on society. Several
economists have attempted to estimate this cost, but caution
that such a task is nearly impossible. The following are some
``best estimates'' of the cost of regulation made by economists
that testified before the Committee.
$600 billion is spent annually on direct regulatory
compliance by regulated firms. Government expenditures
on enforcement and administration are not included in
this figure.
This is equal to an annual tax of $6,000 per family--
an amount equal to half of all taxes collected by the
federal government.
The above regulatory costs do not include the hidden
cost associated with lost productivity due to forced
changes in efficient firm practices required to meet
regulatory compliance.
Listed below are specific costs associated with some of the
regulations under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Economic
and Educational Opportunities.
$500 million to $1.2 billion in additional costs to
the federal government from inflated wages in federal
contracts required under the Davis-Bacon Act.
Annual costs of $8.5 billion to comply with the
Occupational Health and Safety Act as of 1988--well
before the increased burdens promulgated in the late
1980's.
Equal Employment Opportunities Commission direct
costs of compliance of $900 million.
For the EEOC, total costs, including litigation and lost
productivity, have been estimated at several hundred billion
dollars.
Regulatory harmonization
In light of the regulatory costs uncovered at the
Subcommittee's February 1995 hearing, and coupled with the
repeated complaints received by the Subcommittee concerning
overlapping and duplicative regulations, the Subcommittee held
a follow-up hearing on ``Conflicts and Inconsistencies in
Workplace Regulations'' on April 4, 1996.
Because Executive Branch agencies often have different
priorities, many of the regulations that are written and
implemented overlap and are inconsistent and sometimes
conflict. When conflicts and overlaps occur, non-compliance,
confusion, and costs increase. Additionally, the Subcommittee
learned that employers often face dual enforcement and dual
penalties due to regulatory overlaps.
The Subcommittee heard from Ms. Sally Katzen, the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) at the OMB. This is the lead agency in charge of
the Administration's oversight of federal regulations and is
specifically charged with finding and eliminating regulatory
conflict. Ms. Katzen admitted that regulatory conflicts have
become a serious problem, but that agencies should not be held
responsible for conflicts inherent in laws passed by Congress.
Furthermore, she noted that OIRA, under the direction of
Executive Order 12866 was in the process of reviewing all
regulations to root out such conflicts.
During the April 1996 hearing, it became apparent that
several companies viewed regulatory agencies as ``the enemy''
and were hesitant to seek counsel from such agencies for fear
of becoming liable for any violations that were revealed while
seeking advice. Additionally, each of the witnesses testified
to the complexity of these regulations, and the apparent lack
of flexibility afforded to the companies in meeting the stated
goals of the original statutes.
GAO study on regulatory burden
Based on the testimony of the above two hearings, the
Subcommittee requested that the GAO investigate the cost of
regulations and the difficulty companies have in complying with
the numerous rules and regulations issued annually by the
myriad of federal agencies and departments charged with
implementing these regulations.
A draft of the GAO report, ``Regulatory Burden: Selected
Companies' Concerns and Agencies Responses'' was released in
August 1996. While the findings are not yet final, several
initial conclusions are apparent. First, the GAO sought broad
participation in this study, but had difficulty finding
companies that would be willing to participate and many of
those that ultimately chose to cooperate chose to remain
anonymous. This underscores the nervousness companies feel in
having any federal agency review their regulatory compliance.
Second, the companies that did participate had difficulty
developing lists of applicable regulations. Reasons noted for
this difficulty ranged from the fact that some of the
regulations were normal business practice anyway, to the
overlap with State and local regulations, to general confusion
about what regulations were applicable to a given company.
Third, companies lacked data concerning the costs of
regulations. This was due mainly to the fact that few companies
separated out the incremental costs of actions taken because of
regulation from actions that would have taken place anyway,
regardless of any regulations. Fourth, several companies noted
that some regulations have been beneficial, not only from a
safety and health aspect, but from a competitive standpoint. In
particular, having uniform rules reduced the chance that
competitors would opt to undercut prices by shirking their
responsibilities to provide safe work environments.
Finally, the draft GAO report documents 100 separate cases
where companies cite specific concerns about the regulatory
process. These span problems with the cost and reasonableness
of compliance, excessive paperwork, severe penalties, a
``gotcha'' enforcement approach by regulators, and poor
coordination between agencies and departments. In short, this
report highlights many of the issues uncovered by the
Subcommittee.
II. Meetings Held by the Subcommittee
104th Congress, First Session
January 26, 1995--Oversight hearing on reexamining old
assumptions.
February 2, 1995--Joint oversight hearing on the impact of
workplace and employment regulation on business, held with the
Subcommittee on Regulation and Paperwork of the Committee on
Small Business.
February 9, 1995--Oversight hearing on block grant/
consolidation review.
February 16, 1995--Oversight hearing on the Occupational
Safety and Health Act (OSHA).
March 22, 1995--Oversight hearing on education standards.
March 27, 1995--Oversight hearing on obtaining federal and
state assistance.
April 4, 1995--Oversight hearing on identifying conflicts
and inconsistencies in workplace regulations.
May 12, 1995--Oversight hearing on District of Columbia
school reform.
May 19, 1995--Oversight field hearing on leading edge
practices in education, held in Chicago, Illinois.
May 23, 1995--Oversight hearing on federal student loan
programs.
June 8, 1995--Oversight hearing on District of Columbia
school reform.
June 14, 1995--Oversight hearing on accreditation of
graduate medical education.
June 27, 1995--Oversight hearing on District of Columbia
school reform.
July 12, 1995--Oversight hearing on the National Labor
Relations Board.
October 17, 1995--Oversight hearing on AmeriCorps.
October 23, 1995--Oversight field hearing on school choice,
held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
October 31, 1995--Oversight hearing on union corporate
campaign tactics (salting).
December 5, 1995--Oversight hearing on parents, schools and
values.
December 6, 1995--Oversight hearing on parents, schools and
values.
104th Congress, Second Session
January 18, 1996--Joint oversight field hearing on the
Davis-Bacon Act/Oklahoma Fraud Allegations, held with the
Committee's Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, in Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma.
March 19, 1996--Oversight hearing on the financial findings
of the Corporation for National Service.
April 25, 1996--Oversight hearing on abuse of power at the
Department of Labor.
June 20, 1996--Joint oversight hearing on Davis-Bacon/GAO
Report, held with the Committee's Subcommittee on Workforce
Protections.
July 10, 1996--Oversight hearing on Split Decision: The
Inspector General's Report on the Divided Management Structure
of Student Aid Programs at the Department of Education.
September 26, 1996--Oversight hearing on the financial
findings of the Corporation for National Service.
III. Subcommittee Statistics
Total Number of Hearings.......................................... 25
Field......................................................... 3
Joint with other Committees................................... 1