[House Report 105-836]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                                                 Union Calendar No. 477

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
105th Congress                                                   Report
  2d Session             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES               105-836
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     


                       REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES

                                 of the

                       COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND

                             THE WORKFORCE

                               during the

                             105th Congress




 December 30, 1998.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                               --------

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE                    
69-006                     WASHINGTON : 1999






                COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE

                       One Hundred Fifth Congress

                                 ------                                

              WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin           WILLIAM (BILL) CLAY, Missouri
MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey            GEORGE MILLER, California
HARRIS W. FAWELL, Illinois           DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina       MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California
BILL BARRETT, Nebraska               MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan             DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON,           PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
    California                       ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey
MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware          TIM ROEMER, Indiana
SAM JOHNSON, Texas                   ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri            LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania     CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan                Rico
FRANK RIGGS, California              CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina    EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon \1\
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana              RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana           CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Jr., Georgia        JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
RON PAUL, Texas                      RON KIND, Wisconsin
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado               LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania       HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
FRED UPTON, Michigan                 DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio \2\
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida \3\
MIKE PARKER, Mississippi \4\

----------
\1\ Resigned March 6, 1997.
\2\ Appointed March 6, 1997.
\3\ Resigned May 7, 1998.
\4\ Appointed May 13, 1998.



                         STANDING SUBCOMMITTEES

                                 ------                                

              Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations

                  HARRIS W. FAWELL, Illinois, Chairman

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri            DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan            CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin           RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas
MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey            CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina       JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania
                                 ------                                

                 Subcommittee on Workforce Protections

                CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina, Chairman

HARRIS O. FAWELL, Illinois           MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
BILL BARRETT, Nebraska               GEORGE MILLER, California
PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan             MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina    ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey
RON PAUL, Texas                      LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
BOB SCHAFFER, California \5\
SAM JOHNSON, Texas \6\
                                 ------                                

          Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families

                   FRANK RIGGS, California, Chairman

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware          MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California
SAM JOHNSON, Texas                   GEORGE MILLER, California
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana              ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
RON PAUL, Texas                      CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania \6\
WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania    DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania     MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana           DONALD M. PAYNE, New York
JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania       PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
FRED UPTON, Michigan                 TIM ROEMER, Indiana
VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee              DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio \2\

              Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

                   PETE HOEKSTRA, Michigan, Chairman

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia             PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee              RON KIND, Wisconsin
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida \9\         LORETTA SANCHEZ, California \7\
HOWARD ``BUCK'' McKEON, California   HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
    \3\                              ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia \8\
HARRIS W. FAWELL, Illinois \5\
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina \4\
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado \6\
MIKE PARKER, Mississippi \10\

                                 ------                                

    Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education, Training and Life-Long-
                                Learning

            HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, California, Chairman

WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania    DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin           ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey
MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey            TIM ROEMER, Indiana
BILL BARRETT, Nebraska               LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania     CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina        Rico
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana           EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon \1\
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado               RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas
JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania       CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York
MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware          JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
FRANK RIGGS, California              RON KIND, Wisconsin
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana              LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
FRED UPTON, Michigan                 HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia                 CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania \2\

----------
\1\ Resigned March 6, 1997.
\2\ Appointed March 17, 1997.
\3\ Resigned October 2, 1997.
\4\ Appointed October 2, 1997.
\5\ Resigned January 21, 1998.
\6\ Appointed January 21, 1998.
\7\ Resigned March 16, 1998.
\8\ Appointed March 16, 1998.
\9\ Resigned May 7, 1998.
\10\ Appointed May 13, 1998.



                         Letter of Transmittal

                              ----------                              

                      House of Representatives,    
                             Committee on Education
                                         and the Workforce,
                                 Washington, DC, December 30, 1998.
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 
Education and the Workforce for the 105th Congress.
    This report summarizes the activities of the Committee and 
its subcommittees with respect to its legislative and oversight 
responsibilities.
            Sincerely,
                                           Bill Goodling, Chairman.




                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Summary..........................................................     1
Full Committee...................................................     1
 I. Summary of Activities........................................     1
        A. State and Local Control of Schools....................     2
            National Testing.....................................     2
                Hearings on National Testing.....................     2
                FY 1998 Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
                    Education Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-78)...     2
            H.R. 2846, To prohibit spending federal education 
                funds on national testing without explicit and 
                specific statutory authority.....................     3
                FY 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act...............     3
            Dollars to the Classroom.............................     4
                Hearings on Dollars to the Classroom.............     4
                H. Res. 139, Expressing the sense of the House of 
                    Representatives that the Department of 
                    Education, States, and local educational 
                    agencies should spend a greater percentage of 
                    federal education tax dollars in our 
                    children's classrooms........................     5
                H.R. 3248, The Dollars to the Classroom Act......     5
            Class Size Reduction Act Initiative..................     6
        B. Education Reform......................................     7
            H.R. 2646, Education Savings Accounts................     7
            H.R. 2614, The Reading Excellence Act................     8
        C. Supporting Disabled Americans.........................     9
            S. 2432, The Assistive Technology Act of 1998, as 
                amended by the House.............................     9
            H. Res. 399, IDEA Full Funding Resolution............    10
        D. Reforming Welfare and Child Care......................    11
            Welfare Reform.......................................    11
                Reform Continues to be a Success.................    11
                The Future of Reform.............................    12
                Welfare-to-Work Funding..........................    12
            H. Res. 417, The Fatherhood Resolution...............    13
            S. 2206, The Coats Human Services Reauthorization Act 
                of 1998..........................................    13
                Head Start.......................................    14
                The Community Services Block Grant...............    15
                The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program....    16
                Individual Development Accounts..................    16
            S. 459, Native Americans Program Act.................    16
        E. Committee Resolutions.................................    17
            H.R. 3007, The Commission on the Advancement of Women 
                and Minorities in Science, Engineering and 
                Technology Development Act.......................    17
            H. Con. Res. 27, African-American Music Concurrent 
                Resolution.......................................    17
            H. Con. Res. 214, Country Music Resolution...........    18
        F. ERISA Health Insurance Reform and Expanded Coverage...    18
II. Hearings Held by the Committee...............................    19
        105th Congress, First Session............................    19
        105th Congress, Second Session...........................    20
III.Markups Held by the Committee................................    20

        105th Congress, First Session............................    20
        105th Congress, Second Session...........................    21
IV. Legislative Activities.......................................    23
        A. Legislation Enacted Into Law (Bills Referred to 
            Committee)...........................................    23
        B. Legislation Enacted Into Law (Bills Not Referred to 
            Committee)...........................................    23
        C. Legislation Passed the House..........................    24
        D. Legislation Passed the House in Another Measure.......    26
        E. Bills Not Referred to Committee That Passed the House 
            Containing Provisions Under the Committee's 
            Jurisdiction.........................................    27
        F. Legislation With Filed Reports........................    28
        G. Legislation Ordered Reported From Full Committee......    29
        H. Legislation Vetoed....................................    30
 V. Committee on Education and the Workforce Statistics..........    30
Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations......................    31
 I. Summary of Activities........................................    31
        A. Accessibility, Affordability And Accountability in 
            Health Care Coverage and Retirement..................    31
            ERISA Health Insurance Reform and Expanded Coverage 
                (EPHIC)..........................................    31
            Retirement Security Legislation......................    32
        B. Promoting Economic Growth for Small Businesses and 
            Greater Workplace Flexibility........................    33
            The Fairness for Small Business and Employees Act....    33
                Committee Action.................................    33
                Summary..........................................    34
            TEAM Act.............................................    36
        C. Strengthening and Promoting Employees' Individual 
            Rights...............................................    37
            The Worker Paycheck Fairness Act.....................    37
            Impediments to Union Democracy.......................    38
                Subcommittee Hearings............................    38
            Legislation..........................................    39
                Trusteeships.....................................    39
            Direct elections of officers of intermediate bodies..    39
        D. Promoting Efficiency and Accountability in Federal 
            Programs.............................................    40
            Improving the Fairness and Efficiency of the EEOC....    40
                Adequate Funding.................................    40
                Testers..........................................    40
            Review of the National Labor Relations Board.........    40
            Family and Medical Leave.............................    41
            Project Labor Agreements.............................    42
II. Hearings Held by the Subcommittee............................    43
        105th Congress, First Session............................    43
        105th Congress, Second Session...........................    43
III.Markups Held by the Subcommittee.............................    44

        105th Congress, Second Session...........................    44
IV. Subcommittee Statistics......................................    44
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections............................    44
 I. Summary of Activities........................................    44
        A. Enhancing Worker Safety Through Common Sense Reforms 
            OSHA.................................................    44
        B. Reforming Labor Standards To Meet the Challenges of 
            The 21st Century Workplace...........................    46
            The Working Families Flexibility Act.................    46
            Application of the FLSA to ``Inside Sales'' Personnel    48
            Addressing the Employment Needs of Amish Youth.......    49
            Clarifying the FLSA as it Applies to Motor Vehicle 
                Driving by Teenage Employees.....................    51
            Clarifying the Application of the FLSA to Certain 
                Volunteers at Private Non-Profit Food Banks......    52
            Rewarding Performance in Compensation Act............    53
            H-2A and H-1B Visa Changes...........................    53
            The Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers 
                Protection Act...................................    54
        C. Executive Branch Accountability in Federal Programs...    55
            The Davis-Bacon Act..................................    55
            Workers Compensation for Federal Employees...........    55
                Technical Amendment to FECA......................    57
II. Hearings Held by the Subcommittee............................    58
        105th Congress, First Session............................    58
        105th Congress, Second Session...........................    58
III.Markups Held by the Subcommittee.............................    59

        105th Congress, Second Session...........................    59
IV. Subcommittee Statistics......................................    59
Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education..........................    59
 I. Summary of Activities........................................    59
        A. Job Training Reform...................................    59
            H.R. 1385, The Workforce Investment Act..............    59
        B. Higher Education Reform...............................    62
            H.R. 6, The Higher Education Amendments Of 1998......    62
                Hearings.........................................    62
                Saving Student Loans.............................    63
                Making College Affordable........................    63
                Encouraging Students to Work and Save for College    63
                Sound Management of our Financial Aid Programs...    63
                Improving Teacher Quality........................    63
                Making America's Campuses Safer..................    64
                Updating and Improving the Education of the Deaf 
                    Act..........................................    64
                Improving Retirement Options for Faculty.........    65
                Legislative Action...............................    65
            H.R. 2400, The Transportation Equity Act For The 21st 
                Century Emergency Student Loan Interest Rate 
                Adjustment.......................................    65
                Immediate Action Necessary.......................    66
                Consensus Solution...............................    66
                Legislative Action...............................    66
            H.R. 2535, The Emergency Student Loan Consolidation 
                Act of 1997......................................    66
                Immediate Action Necessary.......................    67
                Necessary Solution...............................    67
                Legislative Action...............................    68
            H.R. 1511, The Cost of Higher Education Review Act...    68
                Legislative Action...............................    68
                Commission Activities............................    69
                Commission Recommendations Implemented...........    69
            H.R. 2015, The Balanced Budget Act of 1997...........    69
                Student Loan Provisions..........................    69
                Increasing the Efficiency of our Student Loan 
                    Programs.....................................    70
                Legislative Action...............................    70
            H.R. 4259, The Haskell Indian Nations University and 
                Southwestern Polytechnic Institute Administrative 
                Systems Act of 1998..............................    71
                Reducing Burdensome Regulations..................    71
                Legislative Action...............................    71
II. Hearings Held by the Subcommittee............................    71
        105th Congress, First Session............................    71
        105th Congress, Second Session...........................    72
III.Markups Held by the Subcommittee.............................    73

        105th Congress, First Session............................    73
        105th Congress, Second Session...........................    73
IV. Subcommittee Statistics......................................    73
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families..............    73
 I. Summary of Activities........................................    73
        A. Empowering Parents and Reforming America's Schools....    73
            H.R. 2616, The Charter School Expansion Act of 1998..    73
            Parental Choice and H.R 2746, Helping Empower Low 
                Income Parents (HELP) Scholarships Amendments of 
                1997.............................................    74
            H.R. 3892, The English Language Fluency Act..........    75
        B. Education of Disabled children........................    76
            H.R. 5, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
                Amendments of 1997...............................    76
            H.R. 3254, IDEA Technical Amendments Act of 1998.....    77
        C. Control Juvenile Crime................................    78
            H.R. 1818, The Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency 
                Prevention Act of 1997...........................    78
        D. Technical Training for America's Youth................    79
            H.R. 1853, The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied 
                Technology Education Amendments of 1998..........    79
        E. Child Nutrition.......................................    80
            H.R. 3874, The William F. Goodling Child Nutrition 
                Reauthorization Act of 1998......................    80
II. Hearings Held by the Full Committee..........................    81
        105th Congress, First Session............................    81
        105th Congress, Second Session...........................    82
III.Markups Held by the Full Committee...........................    82

        105th Congress, First Session............................    82
        105th Congress, Second Session...........................    82
IV. Subcommittee Statistics......................................    83
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.....................    83
 I. Summary of Activities........................................    83
        A. Education at a Crossroads.............................    83
            What Works and What's Wasted in Federal Education 
                Programs.........................................    83
                Recommendations..................................    85
                Subcommittee Report..............................    85
        B. AmeriCorp.............................................    86
        C. National Education Association........................    86
            National Endowment for the Arts......................    86
        D. Direct lending........................................    87
            Direct Lending Oversight.............................    87
        E. Ensuring Fairness in Federal Contracting: The Clinton 
            Administration's Proposed ``Blacklisting'' 
            Regulations..........................................    89
        F. Year 2000 Compliance..................................    90
            Department of Education..............................    90
            Department of Labor..................................    91
                Mission-Critical Systems.........................    92
                Verification.....................................    92
                Unemployment Insurance...........................    92
                Contingency Plans................................    93
                GAO Report on OWCP...............................    93
II. Hearings Held by the Subcommittee............................    94
        105th Congress, First Session............................    94
        105th Congress, Second Session...........................    94
III.Markups Held by the Subcommittee.............................    96

        105th Congress, Second Session...........................    96
IV. Subcommittee Statistics......................................    96
 V. Special Investigations of the Subcommittee...................    96
        A. Investigation of the Teamsters Union..................    96
            Federal Supervision and the Consent Decree...........    97
            Investigative Efforts................................    99
            How It Happened: Oversight Weaknesses................   101
            Mismanagement and Malfeasance by IBT Officials.......   103
                Fundraising Schemes and Misuse of Union Resources   103
                Questionable Political Expenditures..............   104
                Improper Ties to the Clinton Administration......   105
                Financial Manipulation...........................   105
                Union Governance.................................   106
            Monitoring the rerun election........................   107
            Hearings Held: Teamsters Investigation...............   108
                105th Congress, First Session....................   108
                105th Congress, Second Session...................   108
        B. American Worker at a Crossroads Project...............   108
            Introduction.........................................   108
            Summary of Activities................................   109
                State of the American Workplace..................   109
                Innovative Workplaces............................   118
                Federal Workplace Policies that Impede the 
                    American Worker: Things that Don't Work......   128
            Hearings and Field Oversight Conducted by the 
                American Worker at a Crossroads Project..........   132
                105th Congress, First Session....................   132
                105th Congress, Second Session...................   132
            American Worker at a Crossroads Project Statistics...   134
            Minority Views.......................................   135


                              INTRODUCTION

    The Rules of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
for the 105th Congress provide for the 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 Education and the 
Workforce as set forth in rule X of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is as follows:

                                 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 Education and the Workforce.
          (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. 477

105th Congress                                                   Report
  2d Session            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                105-836

=======================================================================



 
    REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE 
                               WORKFORCE

                                _______
                                

  December 30, 1998.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______


   Mr. Goodling, from the Committee on Education and the Workforce, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                                Summary

    A total of 525 bills and resolutions were referred to the 
Committee in the 105th Congress. A total of 30 public laws 
resulted on issues within the Committee's jurisdiction, as well 
as the veto of one Act. The Full Committee and its five 
subcommittees conducted 168 days of hearings on legislation 
under consideration and on oversight and administration of laws 
within the jurisdiction of the Committee. The Full Committee 
held 17 of these hearings. Finally, the Full Committee and its 
subcommittees held a total of 39 days of markup sessions in the 
consideration of legislation with 28 of these being Full 
Committee markup sessions. Members of the Committee 
participated in 14 conferences as Members of the Committee. The 
Full Committee and its subcommittees issued 58 subpoenas. The 
Full Committee issued 47 subpoenas.

                             FULL COMMITTEE

                        I. Summary of Activities

    In the 105th Congress, the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce moved more than two dozen major accomplishments in 
education and job training. The Committee also moved health 
care initiatives and legislation aimed to bring common sense 
solutions to everyday problems in the workplace. The activities 
of the Full Committee were as follows.

                 A. STATE AND LOCAL CONTROL OF SCHOOLS

National testing

    In his 1997 State of the Union address, President Clinton 
proposed federally sponsored national tests in 4th grade 
reading and 8th grade mathematics. Currently, almost all States 
have their own State assessments that measure student academic 
achievement. In addition, there are already two federally 
funded tests: (1) the National Assessment of Educational 
Progress (NAEP), also known as the ``Nation's Report Card,'' 
which consists of random sample testing of 4th, 8th, and 12th 
graders in several subject matter areas to determine how 
America's students are performing academically; and (2) the 
Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 
which is an international random sample mathematics and science 
assessment in 4th, 8th, and 12th grades.
            Hearings on national testing
    On April 29, 1997, the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 
Youth and Families held a hearing on the President's proposal 
for federal voluntary tests in reading in the 4th grade and 
mathematics in the 8th grade.
    On January 21, 1998, the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce held a field hearing at Frost Middle School in 
Granada Hills, California on the issue of national testing, 
with a particular focus upon the Administration's plan for 
national tests in 4th grade reading and 8th grade mathematics.
    On February 23, 1998, the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce held a hearing that focused on an overview of testing 
and State standards and assessments. Specifically, the hearing 
addressed: (1) basic principles of testing and the various 
types and purposes of tests; and (2) State and local 
involvement in standards setting and the development of 
assessments.
            FY 1998 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education 
                    Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-78)
    On September 16, 1997, Chairman Bill Goodling (R-PA) 
offered an amendment to H.R. 2264, the FY 1998 Labor, Health 
and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill to 
prohibit national testing. Specifically, the amendment 
prohibited any development, planning, implementation or 
administration of new national tests in 4th grade reading and 
8th grade math. The amendment provided exceptions for the 
random sample NAEP and TIMSS tests, both of which would be 
allowed to continue. The amendment passed the House by a vote 
of 295-125. As part of the conference agreement for H.R. 2264, 
the Administration and the Congress agreed to the following:
           No federal funds may be used to field test, 
        pilot test, implement, administer or distribute in any 
        way, any national tests in FY 1998.
           No required testing of individuals or 
        mandated participation of private schools, home schools 
        or parochial schools.
           The National Academy of Sciences would 
        conduct three testing-related studies as follows:
                  1. The first study would determine the 
                feasibility of whether an equivalency scale can 
                be developed that would allow test scores from 
                commercially available standardized tests, 
                State assessments and the National Assessment 
                of Educational Progress (NAEP), to be compared 
                with one another.
                  2. The second study would evaluate the 
                technical quality, validity, reliability, 
                design, and racial, cultural, or gender bias of 
                test items already developed by the Department 
                of Education.
                  3. The third study would recommend 
                appropriate safeguards to ensure that tests are 
                not used in a discriminatory or inappropriate 
                manner.
           The test development contract previously 
        entered into by the Department of Education will be 
        transferred to the National Assessment Governing Board 
        (NAGB).

H.R. 2846, to prohibit spending federal education funds on national 
        testing without explicit and specific statutory authority

    Chairman Bill Goodling (R-PA) introduced H.R. 2846 on 
November 6, 1997. H.R. 2846 would amend the General Education 
Provisions Act to clarify that there can be no federal tests 
unless specifically and explicitly provided for in authorizing 
legislation enacted into law. The bill provided exceptions for: 
(1) limited test development activities pursuant to P.L. 105-
78, the FY 1998 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education 
Appropriations Act; and (2) the Third International Math and 
Science Study (TIMSS) or comparable international assessments 
administered to representative samples of students pursuant to 
section 404(a)(6) of the National Education Statistics Act of 
1994. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 
which is currently specifically and explicitly authorized in 
sections 411-413 of the National Education Statistics Act of 
1994, would be unaffected by this legislation. The Committee on 
Education and the Workforce ordered H.R. 2846 to be reported on 
January 28, 1998 by a vote of 23-16 and it passed the House on 
February 5, 1998 by a vote of 242-174.
            FY 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act
    The House Committee on Appropriations included language in 
H.R. 4274, the FY 1999 Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education Appropriations Act, prohibiting national testing 
without specific and explicit authorizing legislation. The 
testing prohibition language included in H.R. 4274 was 
incorporated into H.R. 4238, the FY 1999 Omnibus Appropriations 
Act. This legislation passed the House on October 20, 1998 by a 
vote of 333-95. The Senate passed this bill on October 21, 1998 
by a vote of 65-29 and the President signed it into law that 
same day. It is P.L. 105-277. Specifically, the FY 1999 omnibus 
agreement:
           Prohibits pilot testing, field testing, 
        implementation, administration or distribution of 
        national tests, unless specifically and explicitly 
        authorized. It preserves the normal legislative process 
        and the proper role of Congress in setting education 
        policy.
           Requires the National Assessment Governing 
        Board (NAGB) to determine and report to Congress on the 
        purpose and intended use(s) of the proposed national 
        tests, as well as the meaning of the word ``voluntary'' 
        in the context of the tests. In addition, NAGB is to 
        report to Congress on its response to the National 
        Academy of Sciences' recent findings that the 
        achievement levels for the National Assessment of 
        Educational Progress (NAEP), on which the proposed 
        national tests are to be based, are fundamentally 
        flawed. These reports are due to Congress and the White 
        House no later than September 30, 1999.
           Requires the National Academy of Sciences to 
        conduct a study of the technical feasibility, validity, 
        and reliability of imbedding test items from the 
        National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) or 
        other tests into State and district assessments. The 
        report is due to Congress and the White House no later 
        than September 30, 1999.
    The prohibition of national testing without specific and 
explicit authority was also included as an amendment in the 
Senate to H.R. 2646, the Education Savings Savings Act for 
Public and Private Schools. The amendment, offered by Sen. John 
Ashcroft (R-MO), passed the Senate by a vote of 52-47 on April 
22, 1998.

Dollars to the Classroom

            Hearings on Dollars to the Classroom
    During the 105th Congress, several hearings were held 
across the country as a part of the ``Education at a 
Crossroads: What works? What's wasted?'' project of Oversight 
Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI). During the 
course of the hearings, testimony was received from many 
parents, teachers, principals, and State and local 
administrators. One consistent recommendation from these 
witnesses was that a greater percentage of federal education 
funds should reach the classroom, and a lesser percentage be 
allocated to the administrative bureaucracy.
    On May 8, 1997, the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce held a hearing in Washington, D.C. on ``Dollars to 
the Classroom.'' The purpose of this hearing was to receive 
testimony on how much federal taxpayer money actually reaches 
the classroom.
    On May 5, 1998, the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce held a hearing in Washington, D.C. on H.R. 3248, the 
``Dollars to the Classroom Act.'' The purpose of this hearing 
was to receive testimony on the legislation and the potential 
impact of increasing the percentage of federal education 
dollars that actually reach the classroom.
    On August 26, 1998, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations held a hearing in Manchester, Tennessee as part 
of the Committee's ``Education at a Crossroads: What works? 
What's wasted?'' project. As with previous Crossroads hearings, 
the overall focus of this hearing was to look at what's working 
and what's wasted in education. This hearing also focused on 
the issue of sending more dollars to the classroom, as well as 
which local education activities and programs are actually 
improving learning and academic achievement.
            H. Res. 139, Expressing the sense of the House of 
                    Representatives that the Department of Education, 
                    States, and local educational agencies should spend 
                    a greater percentage of federal education tax 
                    dollars in our children's classrooms
    Representative Joseph Pitts (R-PA) introduced H. Res. 139, 
the Dollars to the Classroom resolution on May 1, 1997. This 
resolution expresses the sense of the House of Representatives 
that Congress, the Department of Education, States and local 
educational agencies should:
           determine the extent to which federal 
        elementary and secondary education dollars are 
        currently reaching the classroom;
           work together to remove barriers that 
        currently prevent a greater percentage of funds from 
        reaching the classroom; and
           work toward the goal that at least 90 
        percent of U.S. Department of Education elementary and 
        secondary education program funds will ultimately reach 
        classrooms, when feasible and consistent with 
        applicable law.
    On June 12, 1997, the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 
Youth and Families reported the resolution, as amended, by a 
voice vote to the full Committee. The Committee on Education 
and the Workforce ordered H. Res. 139 to be reported to the 
full House on June 25, 1997, as amended, by a 20-16 vote. On 
October 28, 1997, the report (H. Rept. 105-349) on the 
resolution was filed with the House. H. Res. 139 passed the 
House on October 29, 1997 under suspension of the rules by a 
310-99 vote.
    On September 8, 1997, the Senate passed, by unanimous 
consent, an amendment introduced by Senators Faircloth and 
Craig to H.R. 2264, the FY 1998 Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education Appropriations bill. The amendment 
stipulated that not less than 95percent of the amount 
appropriated for a fiscal year for the activities of the Department of 
Education be used directly for teachers and students.
            H.R. 3248, the Dollars to the Classroom Act
    On February 24, 1998, Representative Joseph Pitts (R-PA) 
introduced H.R. 3248, the Dollars to the Classroom Act, a bill 
which would consolidate 31 elementary and secondary education 
programs into one grant program, and send more dollars to the 
classroom. Rather than tying teachers' hands with heavily 
regulated, tightly restricted grant programs under current law, 
the Dollars to the Classroom Act gives educators greater 
flexibility in using federal education dollars. Educators would 
be able to use grants under the Dollars to the Classroom Act 
for substantially all of the uses of funds as permitted under 
the 31 separate programs. State and local decision-makers are 
given the authority to decide how to allocate the funds within 
the State according to the particular needs of the State. Under 
H.R. 3248:
           School districts would receive increases in 
        federal education funding.
           95 percent of all dollars a school district 
        receives would be required to be spent on classroom 
        activities and services.
           State and local decision-makers, not 
        Washington bureaucrats, would decide how to allocate 
        funds within the State according to the unique needs of 
        the State.
           The Ed-Flex demonstration project would be 
        expanded from twelve States to all 50 States. Ed-Flex 
        is a pilot program which permits twelve States to waive 
        certain statutory and regulatory requirements for 
        programs such as Title I, Even Start, Migrant 
        Education, Eisenhower Professional Development, Safe 
        and Drug Free Schools, Title VI education block grant, 
        the Emergency Immigrant Education Act, and Vocational 
        Education.
    The Committee on Education and the Workforce ordered H.R. 
3248 to be reported on June 24, 1998, as amended, by a 19-18 
vote and on September 14, 1998, the committee filed its report 
(H. Rept. 105-710) with the House. H.R. 3248 passed the House 
on September 18, 1998, as amended, by a 212-198 vote with 1 
voting present.

Class size reduction act initiative

    On October 20, 1998, the House passed H.R. 4328, the 
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations 
bill for Fiscal Year 1999, which included a new $1.2 billion 
Class Size Reduction Initiative. On October 21, 1998, the 
Senate passed this legislation and the President signed H.R. 
4328 into law on that same day, P.L. 105-277. The Committee on 
Education and the Workforce did not consider this legislation. 
However, on February 24, 1998, the Subcommittee on Early 
Childhood, Youth and Families held a hearing to review research 
related to class size reduction initiatives.
    The Class Size Reduction Initiative provides $1.2 billion 
to local school districts in fiscal year 1999 under the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act to reduce class size and 
hire and train quality teachers. This program is authorized for 
one year only. Grants will not be available until July 1, 1999, 
meaning schools will receive these funds for the 1999/2000 
school year.
    One hundred percent of these funds are driven locally to 
school districts and no funds are used for federal or State 
administration. No more than three percent of the funds may be 
used for local administration. A State receives its allotment 
of funds under either the Title I formula (based on number of 
poor children in the State and the average per pupil 
expenditure in the State) or the Title II Eisenhower program 
formula (50 percent based on school-aged population and 50 
percent based on Title I), whichever is greater. Both formulas 
have a small state minimum. A local educational agency receives 
its funds 80 percent based on the number of poor children and 
20 percent based on student enrollment in the school district.
    Funds must be used to reduce class size with quality 
teachers by recruiting, hiring, training and testing regular 
teachers, special education teachers and teachers of special 
needs children. Teachers can be hired through State and local 
alternative certification routes. Fifteen percent of these 
funds can be used for professional development of regular 
teachers, special education teachers and teachers of special 
needs children as well as testing new teachers for academic 
content knowledge and to meet State certification requirements. 
If a school district has already reduced its class size in the 
early grades to 18 or less children, then the school district 
can use these funds to further reduce class size in the early 
grades or other grades or for activities to improve teacher 
quality. No funds can be used to increase teachers' salaries or 
benefits.
    Each school benefiting from this program shall produce an 
annual report to parents, the general public, and the State 
Educational Agency on student achievement that is a result of 
hiring additional highly qualified teachers and reducing class 
size.

                          B. EDUCATION REFORM

H.R. 2646, education savings accounts

    H. R. 2646, the Education Savings Act for Public and 
Private Schools (also known as ``A+Savings Accounts'') was 
introduced by Rep. Bill Archer (R-TX) on October 9, 1997 and 
referred to the Committee on Ways and Means. This measure 
passed the House on October 23, 1997 by a vote of 230-198. It 
was amended in the Senate, and passed the Senate on April 23, 
1998. Included in the Senate-amended version were several 
substantive education amendments under the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce. The final conference 
agreement passed the House on June 8, 1998 by a vote of 225-
197, and included some, but not all of the education amendments 
from the Senate. President Clinton vetoed the legislation on 
July 21, 1998.
    The A+ Savings Accounts bill amends the tax code to 
authorize the establishment of savings accounts to pay for K-12 
education expenses of a student at public, private, religious 
or home schools. Under the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, such 
accounts were authorized only for college or university 
education expenses. The A+ Savings Accounts bill allows up to 
$2000 in contributions to be made each year until the student 
is 18 years old. While the contributions would receive no 
special tax treatment, the build-up of the interest within the 
accounts would be tax-free if used for the student's education 
(up to age 30). Savings could be used specifically fortuition 
(K-12 or higher education), tutoring, transportation, equipment, 
services for children with special needs, home computers, uniforms, 
books and supplies, and under certain circumstances, homeschooling 
expenses.
    The education amendments under the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce that were included in 
the final conference report were: (1) authorization of student 
improvement incentive awards which could be used by a State 
educational agency to make awards to public schools in the 
State that are determined to be outstanding schools pursuant to 
a statewide assessment; (2) authorization for incentives for 
States to implement teacher testing and merit pay programs; (3) 
authorization for the use of federal education dollars to fund 
education reform projects that provide same gender schools and 
classrooms, as long as comparable educational opportunities are 
offered for students of both sexes; (4) Sense of the Senate 
resolution that 95 percent of every federal education dollar 
should end up in the classroom; (5) authorization of a literacy 
program which focuses upon training teachers to teach reading 
using scientifically proven methods, such as phonics; (6) 
authorization of a foreign languages study by the General 
Accounting Office; and (7) a provision declaring that weapons 
brought to school are admissible as evidence in any internal 
school disciplinary proceeding.
    Dropped from the final conference report was an amendment 
offered by Sen. John Ashcroft (R-MO) which would have 
prohibited national testing without specific and explicit 
authority. The amendment had earlier passed the Senate by a 
vote of 52-47 on April 22, 1998.
    Education provisions not under the jurisdiction of the 
Education and Workforce Committee but which were included in 
the conference agreement were: (1) increase in the small issuer 
arbitrage exception to $15 million, provided that at least $10 
million of the bonds are used to finance public schools; (2) 
exclusion from gross income of the contribution and earnings 
portion of distributions from qualified state tuition programs; 
(3) allowing private colleges to offer prepaid tuition programs 
in 2006; (4) extension through December 2002 of the current 
exclusion from income of employer-provided education assistance 
for undergraduate courses.

H.R. 2614, the Reading Excellence Act

    The Committee was very concerned about the findings of the 
NAEP 1994 Reading Report Card that 40 percent of students in 
the fourth grade were below the basic level of reading 
achievement. In an effort to determine the best way to address 
the reading difficulties of young children, the Committee held 
three hearings to explore this issue. The July 10, 1997, 
hearing explored current research on how children learn to 
read. The July 31, 1997, hearing reviewed the role of current 
federal literacy programs in helping children learn to read and 
the September 3, 1997, hearing focused on the need for strong 
professional development for teachers of reading based on 
reliable, replicable research on reading. Witnesses at all 
three hearings indicated that the way to address this problem 
was by providing better pre-service and in-service training 
based on reliable, replicable research for teachers who teach 
reading.
    Based on information provided at Committee hearings, 
Chairman Bill Goodling (R-PA) introduced H.R. 2614, the Reading 
Excellence Act, on October 7, 1997. The purpose of H.R. 2614 
was to assist States, local school districts and parents in 
accessing the latest scientific research in reading instruction 
and to train teachers in research-based reading practices in 
areas of the country where illiteracy is the highest.
    H.R. 2614 was ordered reported (as amended) by the 
Committee on October 22, 1997, by voice vote. The House passed 
the bill (as amended) under suspension of the rules on November 
8, 1997. The Senate passed identical legislation as an 
amendment to H.R. 2646, the A+ Education Savings Account Act. 
Contingent upon enactment by July 1, 1998, the FY 1998 Labor-
HHS-Education Appropriations bill provided $210 million for a 
new literacy initiative. However, after both Houses passed a 
conference report, which included the language of the Reading 
Excellence Act, President Clinton vetoed it on July 17, 1998. 
The Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee reported their 
version of the House reading proposal on May 13, 1998. The 
Senate passed H.R. 2614, as amended on October 6, 1998. The 
House did not take up the amended version of H.R. 2614 as a 
separate measure. It was, however, included as part of the 
Fiscal Year 1999 Omnibus spending measure enacted prior to the 
adjournment of the 105th Congress. It is P.L. 105-277.
    As passed by Congress, the Reading Excellence Act will 
improve the reading skills of children through a variety of 
activities. The primary focus on this legislation is to improve 
the instructional methods of teachers who teach reading through 
the use of findings from scientifically based research on 
reading, including phonics. In addition, the bill provides for 
the expansion of high-quality family literacy programs which 
insure that parents have the literacy skills necessary to help 
their children learn to read and that their children come to 
school ready to learn to read. Other activities supported under 
the Reading Excellence Act include programs to help children 
transition to first grade, and tutoring for children before, 
after and during non-instructional school hours. It is also the 
purpose of this Act to increase parental involvement through 
tutorial assistance grants that allow parents to choose reading 
tutors for their children from a list of providers developed by 
the local educational agency. Finally, the Committee believes 
this Act will work to reduce the number of students 
inappropriately referred to special education based on reading 
difficulties.
    H.R. 2614 also made improvements to the Even Start Family 
Literacy Program.

                    C. supporting disabled americans

S. 2432, the Assistive Technology Act of 1998, as amended by the House 
        -

    The Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with 
Disabilities Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-407) or ``Tech Act'' 
established a program of federal grants to States to encourage 
the development and coordination of State systems to promote 
the provision of assistive technology services and devices to 
individuals with disabilities. These assistive technology 
services and devices are used by individuals with disabilities 
to increase, maintain, or improve their functional abilities. 
Examples of assistive technology include communications 
devices, housing modifications, vehicle modifications, adapted 
computers and specialized software.
    All 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the 
territories currently receive grants under the Tech Act. The 
Tech Act was reauthorized in 1994 (P.L. 103-218) and the 
authorization expired on September 30, 1998; however, the 
General Education Provisions Act provides an automatic one-year 
extension. The program is funded at $36 million in FY 1998 and 
has been funded at this level for the last several years.
    On September 15, 1998, the Senate Committee on Labor and 
Human Resources unanimously reported S. 2432, the Assistive 
Technology Act of 1998. The Senate passed S. 2432 on October 5, 
1998. On October 9, 1998, the House passed S. 2432 as amended. 
On October 14, 1998, the Senate passed S. 2432 as amended by 
the House and sent it to the President to be enacted into law. 
The House Committee on Education and the Workforce held no 
hearings on this legislation in the 105th Congress.
    S. 2432 repealed the current Tech Act, replacing it with a 
new law that removed federal support for developmental 
activities in establishing assistive technology programs. It 
allows States who have not received a full ten years of federal 
grant aid to continue to receive such assistance and it extends 
participation in this program under a new Challenge Grant 
program for an additional five years to States. Finally, it 
establishes a new competitive Supplementary Millennium State 
Grant program for capacity building. Title II repeals several 
currently unfunded programs, and establishes three new grant 
programs to assist small businesses, rural areas, and train 
rehabilitation engineers. Title III maintains the currently 
authorized but unfunded Alternative Financing Systems grants to 
States.
    The House substitute amendment made two major changes from 
the Senate bill. It repealed the Challenge Grant Program and 
the Supplementary Millennium State Grant program and terminated 
the Tech Act after all States have completed their 10 year 
cycle under the Continuity Grant. The House substitute allows 
the Secretary to extend the continuity grant for three more 
years to States who have completed the tenth year of funding 
but no extensions can be made after FY 2004. The authorization 
is $36 million in FY 1999 and such sums through FY 2004 for the 
State Continuity Grant and for all other programs (National 
Activities, Demonstrations, and the Alternative Financing 
Mechanisms), the authorization is such sums in FY 1999 and FY 
2000. These changes reflect the House position that this 
program should end after providing States two 5-year grant 
cycles because the original purpose of this program was to 
provide a small amount of federal assistance to start this 
system and that has been successful.

H. Res. 399, IDEA full funding resolution

    On March 26, 1998, Representative Charles Bass (R-NH) 
introduced H. Res. 399, the IDEA Full-Funding Resolution, and 
it was referred to the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce. On May 8, 1998, the Committee referred the 
resolution to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth, and 
Families. The Subcommittee marked-up and forwarded the 
resolution, as amended, to the full Committee on May 21, 1998. 
The Committee favorably ordered reported the resolution, as 
amended, on June 4, 1998 to the House. The House agreed to the 
resolution by voice vote on June 16, 1998.
    The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Part B 
funding formula, which provides funds to State education 
agencies and local education agencies for services to students 
with disabilities, establishes a maximum grant of 40% per 
student served of the national average per pupil expenditure. 
The highest the federal contribution reached was 12.5% in FY 
1979. In FY 1998, the federal government contribution reached 
10.7%. Under the substantial increase in funding in FY 1999, 
the contribution is up to 11.6%. Since FY 1995, Republican 
controlled Congresses have raised the federal contribution, 
from $2.3 billion to $4.3 billion--and increase of $2 billion 
or 87%--far greater than under prior Democrat controlled 
Congresses.
    House Resolution 399 urges Congress and the President to 
make funding for IDEA a higher priority among federal education 
programs, while still working within the balanced budget 
agreement. The resolution recognizes the unmet commitment to 
providing funding at 40% of the average per pupil expenditure. 
The resolution contains a number of findings which establish 
the justification for increasing the priority to funding IDEA.

                  D. REFORMING WELFARE AND CHILD CARE

Welfare reform

            Reform continues to be a success
    During the 104th Congress, the Committee played a major 
role in helping shape many key aspects of the historic welfare 
reform law. In addition to streamlining nutrition and childcare 
programs, this reform replaced the Aid to Families with 
Dependent Children (AFDC) program with Temporary Assistance for 
Needy Families (TANF). After two years since enactment, the new 
law is widely viewed as a major success.
    In fact, since 1996 there has been a 27% drop in the 
national welfare caseload. This translates to the lowest 
percent of the US population receiving welfare since 1969. 
However, the success of welfare goes far beyond the major 
decrease in the welfare caseload.
    This past year, the Department of Health and Human Services 
issued its first Annual Report to Congress on the Temporary 
Assistance for Needy Families program. The report noted the 
dramatic progress made on the critical goal of moving families 
from welfare to work. Some of the findings in the report 
include:
           Data from the Census Bureau's Current 
        Population Survey show that the rate of employment of 
        individuals on welfare in one year who were working in 
        the following year increased by nearly 30 percent 
        between 1996 and 1997.
           There is evidence of significant increases 
        in employment among welfare recipients. A recent study 
        in Oregon also showed dramatic increases in earnings of 
        welfare recipients.
           In most States, state policy and spending 
        choices have reflected a focus on work rather than a 
        race to the bottom (as was often charged by opponents 
        of welfare reform.)
           Last year, almost half of the States 
        reported spending more on welfare programs than 
        required under the new law. The report points out that 
        these States are putting these extra dollars into child 
        care, up-front diversion, rainy day funds, work-based 
        assistance, and on state earned income tax credits.
    The increase in employment among individuals on welfare is 
especially significant given the results of a recent study of 
12 States by the Urban Institute. In Does Work Pay, the Urban 
Institute found that work does indeed pay, even in jobs that 
are low-wage, part-time, and which lack benefits. Specifically, 
the study found that working full-time at the minimum wage 
moved a parent and two children above the poverty line in all 
States studied. In addition, the study found that a single 
parent with two children moving from welfare to 20 hours of 
work each week at a minimum wage had their income increase an 
average of 51 percent.
    Much of this success is clearly due to the profound change 
in the culture of welfare. No longer seen as a permanent 
entitlement to single parents, welfare has transformed into a 
program providing temporary assistance while helping people 
find work so families can get jobs, support themselves, and 
prepare for the future.
    The General Accounting Office highlighted the extent of 
this transformation in a recent report. The GAO found that in 
the seven States studied, welfare agencies are generally being 
transformed into job placement centers, and in some instances 
applicants are expected to engage in job search activities as 
soon as they apply for assistance. As part of this 
transformation, the GAO found that States have expanded welfare 
workers' roles by shifting their priorities from determining 
eligibility and cash assistance levels to helping recipients 
obtain work and become more self-sufficient. The report also 
concluded that States are using some of the additional 
budgetary resources available under the welfare reform law to 
enhance support services such as transportation and childcare. 
In addition, they found that States are working to enhance 
their capacity to treat physical and mental health problems.
    This past year, the GAO also completed a report on State's 
efforts to expand childcare. The report pointed to the positive 
direction being taken by States to expand childcare 
opportunities in order to enable parents to work toward self-
sufficiency. Among the findings:
           States are expanding childcare subsidy 
        programs for low-income families enabling more children 
        to be served.
           Combined federal (including transfer 
        authority from TANF) and State child care funding have 
        allowed States to expand their child care programs. 
        Funding for childcare in Los Angeles increased 62% from 
        FY 1996 to FY 1997, in California by 26%, in Wisconsin 
        by 38%. Several States are exceeding the State match 
        that is required to draw federal funds. California 
        spent $353.8 million more than was required to get the 
        maximum amount of federal dollars.
           Due to the significant declines in TANF 
        caseloads, Wisconsin was able to use $13 million 
        directly from their TANF block grant for childcare. A 
        pattern that is being repeated in other States such as 
        Texas, Connecticut, and California.
            The future of reform
    The Committee views these trends as very positive outcomes 
of welfare reform and expects continued success as States and 
localities forge ahead with its implementation. During the next 
Congress, the Committee will continue to monitor this 
implementation.
            Welfare-to-work funding
    On June 12, 1997, the Committee adopted language including 
a welfare-to-work program and several amendments to the TANF 
work requirements. This language was pursuant to the 
Reconciliation instructions contained in the Conference Report 
to H. Con. Res. 84, the Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 1998.
    The $3 billion welfare-to-work program adopted by the 
Committee and the amendments to TANF were included as part of 
the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. The two-year welfare-to-work 
program provides States and localities additional funds to 
assist in efforts to move welfare recipients into employment. 
Our Committee worked with the Committee on Ways and Means to 
ensure these funds will be directed to recipients with the 
greatest barriers to employment and certain non-custodial 
parents. In addition, the Committee worked to ensure that 
States and localities utilize existing Private Industry 
Councils in the delivery of these employment-related services 
in order to avoid duplication of effort.
    Under this program, localities may use these funds for job 
creation, job placement, and job retention efforts, including 
wage subsidies to private employers and other critical post-
employment support services. Of the total funding, $2.2 billion 
was made available to be allocated by formula over two years to 
States. An additional $711.5 million was made to the Secretary 
of Labor to award grants on a competitive basis to local 
communities for innovative welfare-to-work projects. [The 1999 
Omnibus Budget includes language that has the effect of 
rescinding $137 million of formula grant funds where States 
have not claimed the funds by the end of the fiscal year.]
    The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 also included several 
amendments to the work requirements under the TANF program. 
These amendments included a clarification that up to 30% of 
recipients counted toward meeting the work requirement may do 
so through participation in vocational education. After the 
year 2000, teenage heads of households who participate in high 
school will also be included under this cap. A second amendment 
established a penalty of not less than 1% and not more than 5% 
for States failing to implement ``pay for performance'' 
standards as required under TANF.

H. Res. 417, the fatherhood resolution

    H. Res. 417, introduced by Rep. Joseph Pitts, highlights 
the importance of the active involvement of fathers in the 
rearing and development of their children. The resolution was 
referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce on 
April 30, 1998 and to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 
Youth and Families on May 15th. On June 4th, the Committee 
ordered the resolution to be reported and on June 6th the 
measure passed the House by a vote of 415 to 0.

S. 2206, the Coats Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1998

    During the 105th Congress, the Subcommittee on Early 
Childhood, Youth and Families worked to extend the 
authorization and make improvements in several important human 
service programs that are under its jurisdiction. Specifically, 
H.R. 4241, the Head Start Amendments Act of 1998, and H.R. 
4271, the Community Services Authorization Act of 1998 were 
developed to extend the authorizations of the Head Start and 
CSBG programs. These bills make important changes in these 
programs that would result in improved services, increased 
quality, and accountability.
    Ultimately, the provisions of H.R. 4241 and H.R. 4271 were 
merged into a combined human services authorization bill, S. 
2206, the Coats Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1998. S. 
2206 was passed by the House, as amended, on September 14, 
1998. The Senate passed its version of the legislation earlier 
on July 27, 1998. Senate and House Conferees met to resolve 
differences between the two bills on September 29, 1998. The 
Senate passed the conference agreement on S. 2206 on October 8, 
1998, and the House passed the agreement on October 9, 1998. 
The measure was signed by the President on October 27, 1998, 
P.L. 105-285.
            Head Start
    Head Start has offered comprehensive health, education, and 
child development services for three to five-year olds of low-
income families, since 1965. Today, the program has also been 
expanded to serve infants and toddlers. Head Start was last 
authorized in 1994. The authorization of the program expired in 
FY 1998.
    As the Committee prepared to reauthorize Head Start, the 
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families held four 
hearings, including two field hearings, on Head Start during 
the second session of the 105th Congress.
    On March 26, 1998, the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 
Youth and Families held a joint hearing with the Subcommittee 
on Children and Families of the Committee on Labor and Human 
Resources of the U.S. Senate. On June 9, 1998, the Subcommittee 
on Early Childhood, Youth and Families held a hearing in 
Washington, D.C. On July 7, 1998 the Subcommittee on Early 
Childhood, Youth and Families held a field hearing in McAllen, 
TX. On July 10, 1998 the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth 
and Families, held a field hearing in Napa, CA.
    In response to concerns raised at those hearings about the 
quality of Head Start, in particular the quality of the 
educational component of Head Start, on July 16, 1998, 
Representative Frank Riggs (R-CA), Chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Early Childhood, Youth and Families, introduced H.R. 4241, 
the Head Start Amendments of 1998. The bill made significant 
changes to the Head Start program and authorized the program 
through the year 2003. H.R. 4241, as amended, was ordered 
favorably reported by the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce by a vote of 23 to 18.
    Title I of P.L. 105-285 establishes quality and 
accountability as the focus of the authorization through a 
variety of measures that strengthen the education component of 
Head Start. The Act ensures that local Head Start agencies will 
be held accountable for successfully preparing children to 
enter school ready to read, by inserting new education 
performance standards and measures by which individual Head 
Start program's performance will be measured. In addition, the 
Act requires that at least one-half of all Head Start teachers 
possess a college degree in early childhood education or a 
related field by the end of the year 2003.
    P.L. 105-285 strikes the appropriate balance between 
quality and expansion. It slows the rate of the growth of the 
program and increases funding for quality, in the initial years 
of the authorization, so that the Head Start program has the 
time and the means to develop greater capacity to provide 
higher quality services. Quality dollars will be used to 
recruit and retain more college-educated teachers and to 
provide training to teachers in successful techniques and 
practices in preparing children to enter school ready to read.
    In keeping with the themes of quality and accountability, 
the Act also authorizes a major impact study of Head Start to 
measure Head Start's effectiveness.
            The community services block grant
    The Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) provides funds to 
States and local communities for activities designed to fight 
poverty and foster self-sufficiency. CSBG provides funds to 
1,134 ``eligible entities''--mostly local non-profit Community 
Action Agencies in 96 percent of all counties. The activities 
of local programs under CSBG vary widely depending on the needs 
and circumstances of each local community. Common uses of funds 
include the coordination of programs and services for the poor 
and the provision of emergency assistance in local communities.
    Hearings on CSBG found that the existing community action 
network is doing an effective job at addressing the needs of 
high-poverty communities throughout the nation. However, it was 
also found that there is a need for increased accountability in 
the system; a broadening of the resource base, including 
partnerships with private providers; and a need for more 
innovative approaches in the fight against poverty.
    As the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families 
prepared to extend the authorization of the CSBG program and to 
make improvements in the program, it held a hearing on the 
program on June 5, 1998 in Washington, D.C. At that hearing 
Members of the Subcommittee heard from representatives of State 
and local CSBG programs which included State and local 
directors of programs, program beneficiaries, and community 
leaders who serve on local CSBG boards. The Subcommittee also 
heard testimony from individuals involved in innovative 
community economic development programs.
    On July 17, 1998, Representative Frank Riggs (R-CA) 
introduced H.R. 4271, the ``Community Services Authorization 
Act of 1998''. The legislation was developed with the intent of 
making changes to the Community Services Block Grant Act that 
will better enable States and local communities to eradicate 
poverty, revitalize high poverty neighborhoods, and empower 
low-income individuals and communities to become self-
sufficient.
    On July 29, 1998, the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce favorably reported H.R. 4271 with amendments, by a 
voice vote. One of the amendments accepted by the full 
Committee added a 2-year extension of the Low Income Home 
Energy Assistance Program Act (LIHEAP) to H.R. 4271.
    Title II of P.L. 105-285 contains the provisions affecting 
CSBG. The Act enables States and local communities to assist in 
eradication of poverty, revitalization of high-poverty 
neighborhoods, and empowerment of low-income individuals and 
communities to become self-sufficient. P.L. 105-285 increases 
program accountability and encourages development of effective 
partnerships between government, local communities, and 
charitable organizations (including faith-based organizations) 
to meet the needs of impoverished individuals. The Act includes 
several new initiatives for which States and local areas may 
use CSBG funds including literacy, youth development, 
fatherhood, and community policing initiatives in high poverty 
areas. It allows States to spend up to 10 percent of their 
State-held funds for State charitable tax credits that have the 
goal of poverty alleviation.
            The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program
    The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) 
provides heating and cooling assistance to almost five million 
low-income households each year. Individuals and families 
receiving this assistance include the working poor, individuals 
making the transition from welfare to work, individuals with 
disabilities, the elderly, and families with young children. In 
addition to the basic energy assistance program, the LIHEAP Act 
also authorizes emergency energy assistance and home 
weatherization services for eligible individuals in need.
    The Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families 
held one hearing on the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program (LIHEAP) on April 8, 1997. The Subcommittee received 
testimony from Members of Congress and from State and local 
program administrators and beneficiaries of the LIHEAP program.
    On July 29, 1998, the full Committee on Education and the 
Workforce favorably reported H.R. 4271 with amendments, by a 
voice vote. One of the amendments accepted by the Committee 
added a two-year extension of the Low Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program Act (LIHEAP) to H.R. 4271.
    Title III of P.L. 105-285 extends the authorization of the 
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) for five 
years at ``such sums'' in FY 2000 and FY 2001, and $2 billion 
in FY 2002 through FY 2004.
            Individual development accounts
    Title IV of P.L. 105-285 includes a new 5-year 
demonstration program for the establishment of individual 
development accounts (IDAs). IDAs are matched savings 
accountsfor low-income individuals for postsecondary education, the 
purchase of a first home, and for business capitalization. The 
authorization is set at $25 million per year for the 5 year 
authorization of the program.

S. 459, Native Americans Program Act

    Authorization for the Native American Programs Act expired, 
for the most part, in the 104th Congress. Changes to this 
legislation are usually considered at the same time as the 
Older Americans Act.
    On July 9, 1997, Representative Frank Riggs (R-CA), 
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and 
Families held a hearing on the Native American Programs Act. No 
further action was taken.
    The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs reported S. 459, the 
Native American Programs Act Amendments of 1997 on May 21, 
1997. The Senate passed it on September 29, 1997. It was then 
referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce in the 
House of Representatives. On October 9, 1998, it was discharged 
by the Committee on Education and the Workforce and passed by 
the House, as amended, by unanimous consent. The Senate passed 
the amended version of this legislation on October 14, 1998.
    The Administration for Native Americans (ANA) promotes 
social and economic self-sufficiency among Indian Tribes 
through a variety of grant programs. The Committee felt the 
current programs were successful in accomplishing their goals 
and did not believe they were in need of major reform. 
Therefore, the main purpose of S. 459 was to extend these 
programs through 2003. The only major change to the Native 
Americans Programs Act affected the Native Hawaiian Revolving 
Loan Fund. Authorization for this program was only extended 
through 2002. It is the belief of the Committee that this Fund 
should operate without continued financial support from the 
federal government. However, funding is provided to the Fund 
through 2002 to allow for a smooth transition period.

                        e. committee resolutions

H.R. 3007, the Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in 
        Science, Engineering and Technology Development Act

    The Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities 
in Science, Engineering, and Technology Development Act, H.R. 
3007, was introduced by Representative Connie Morella (R-MD) on 
November 9, 1997. H.R. 3007 establishes an 11 member Commission 
to both identify the number of women, minorities and 
individuals with disabilities in the fields of science, 
engineering, and technology development and to determine the 
barriers that exist for the aforementioned populations pursuing 
an education or career within each of these disciplines. The 
Commission is also directed to issue recommendations that 
government, academia, and private industry can follow to 
encourage the recruitment, retention, and advancement of women, 
minorities and individuals with disabilities in each of these 
disciplines.
    H.R. 3007 was introduced in response to the need to 
integrate women, minorities and individuals with disabilities 
into the fields of science, engineering and technology 
development. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has predicted that 
the demand for highly skilled workers in computer and data 
processing services will more than double over the next ten 
years. The shift from an industrial age to an information age 
has resulted in the need for an increased pool of high-tech 
workers trained in all areas of science, engineering, and 
technology development. While progress has been made in 
integrating women, minorities and individuals with disabilities 
into such disciplines, they continue to be underrepresented in 
most scientific and engineering fields.
    On June 24, 1998, the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce considered H.R. 3007 and favorably reported the bill, 
as amended, by voice vote. On September 14, 1998, the House of 
Representatives passed H.R. 3007 under Suspension of the Rules, 
by voice vote. The Senate passed H.R. 3007 without amendment on 
October 1, 1998 by Unanimous Consent. H.R. 3007 was signed into 
law by the President on October 14, 1998. It is now P.L. 105-
255.

H. Con. Res. 27, African-American music concurrent resolution

    H. Con. Res. 27, introduced by Rep. Chaka Fattah, 
recognizes the importance of African-American Music on both 
American and global culture. The resolution calls on the people 
of the United States to study, reflect on, and celebrate 
African-American music. The concurrent resolution was referred 
to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce on 
February 27, 1998 and to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 
Youth and Families on March 14, 1998. On October 13, 1998 the 
resolution passed the House under suspension of the rules by 
voice vote. The Senate received the resolution on October 14, 
1998.

H. Con. Res. 214, country music resolution

    H. Con. Res. 214, introduced by Rep. William Jenkins, 
recognizes Bristol, Tennessee and Bristol, Virginia as the 
birthplace of country music. The resolution commends the cities 
of Bristol, Tennessee and Virginia and the citizens thereof, 
for their contribution in the origination and development of 
country music. The concurrent resolution was referred to the 
House Committee on Education and the Workforce on February 11, 
1998 and to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and 
Families on March 16, 1998. On October 9, 1998 the Resolution 
passed the House under suspension of the rules by voice vote. 
On October 12, 1998 the Senate agreed to the resolution.

         f. erisa health insurance reform and expanded coverage

    In the 105th Congress, the Committee initiated the 
legislative debate leading to the passage of ERISA health 
insurance reform and the expansion of health insurance 
coverage.
    Building on the record from the 104th Congress in which the 
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) 
(P.L. 104-191) extended to employees and their families 
newERISA protections in the areas of preexisting conditions, 
nondiscrimination and expanded enrollment, the House considered and 
passed the Patient Protection Act of 1998 (H.R. 4250) which includes 
new patient protections under ERISA.
    The Patient Protection Act was developed under the auspices 
of the Republican House Working Group on Healthcare Quality. 
The working group included four members of the Committee: 
Chairman Goodling, Chairman Fawell of the Subcommittee on 
Employer-Employee Relations, Representative Talent, and 
Representative Norwood. H.R. 4250, the Patient Protection Act, 
was introduced on July 16, 1998, by Speaker Gingrich. The 
legislation passed the House on July 24, 1998, by a vote of 216 
to 210.
    Title I of H.R. 4250 amends the Employee Retirement Income 
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Under this legislation, ERISA is 
amended to require patient access to unrestricted medical 
advice, emergency medical care, obstetric and gynecological 
care and pediatric care. This legislation also greatly expands 
patient access to information regarding health plan coverage, 
managed care procedures, health care providers and quality of 
medical care. It establishes new claims procedures giving 
patients access to timely internal decisions by physicians and 
to external review by independent medical professionals. 
Further, for covered individuals, it establishes new procedures 
for and access to our courts for grievances arising under group 
health plans. Most importantly, this legislation gives millions 
of uninsured working Americans access to new opportunities for 
quality and affordable health care coverage through the 
creation of Association Health Plans (AHPs). The ``Small 
Business Affordable Health Coverage Act'' included in Subtitle 
D of Title I of H.R. 4250 incorporates into the Patient 
Protection Act provisions similar to H.R. 1515 which was also 
reported by the Committee.
    H.R. 4250 establishes critical patient protections while at 
the same time providing millions of uninsured Americans the 
opportunity for affordable and quality health care coverage. 
The legislation also preserves the ERISA preemption cornerstone 
that has fueled the marketplace dynamics that have recently 
kept in check health insurance cost inflation, thus keeping 
health insurance more affordable for millions of Americans.
    Other legislation under the committee's jurisdiction was 
passed to eliminate barriers to the effective establishment and 
enforcement of medical child support. Under prior law effective 
enforcement of medical child support was thwarted by a lack of 
standardized communication among State child support 
enforcement agencies, parents' employers, and the plan 
administrators of parents' health insurance plans. Streamlining 
the medical support process for ERISA plans is essential to 
ensure that all children receive the medical support for which 
they are eligible. Therefore, the provisions of H.R. 3130 (P.L. 
105-200) require the Secretaries of the Departments of Health 
and Human Services and Labor to design and implement a National 
Standardized Medical Support Notice to be used by State child 
support agencies, employers and group health plans to ensure 
the enrollment of children under the health insurance coverage 
for which they are eligible. A Medical Child Support Working 
Group is also established to provide recommendations to the 
Congress for appropriate measures to address the impediments to 
effective enforcement of child medical support.
    The House also passed legislation under the Committee's 
jurisdiction extending ERISA protections to certain cancer 
patients. The ``Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1998'' 
is included under Title IX of H.R. 4328 (P.L. 105-277) in the 
Labor-HHS portion of the legislation.
    In general, this Act amends ERISA to require group health 
plans and health insurance issuers that cover medical and 
surgical benefits for mastectomy to also include in their scope 
of coverage: (1) all stages of reconstruction of the breast on 
which the mastectomy has been performed, (2) surgery and 
reconstruction of the other breast to produce a symmetrical 
appearance, and (3) prostheses and physical complications of 
mastectomy, including lymphedemas, in a manner determined under 
the terms of the plan or health insurance coverage in 
consultation with the attending physician and the patient. The 
provisions are generally effective with respect to plan years 
beginning on or after date of enactment.

                   II. Hearings Held by the Committee

105th Congress, First Session

    January 28, 1997--H.R. 6, the Higher Education Amendments 
of 1998.
    January 29, 1997--Hearing on Education at a Crossroads, 
What Works, What's Wasted.
    March 5, 1997--Hearing on President Clinton's Education 
Initiatives.
    March 3, 1997--Hearing on President Clinton's Education 
Initiatives.
    April 22, 1997--Hearing on Education at a Crossroads, What 
Works, What's Wasted.
    July 9, 1997--H.R. 1625, Worker Paycheck Fairness Act.
    July 10, 1997--Hearing on Literacy: Why Children Can't 
Read.
    July 31, 1997--Hearing on Literacy: A Review of Current 
Federal Programs.
    September 3, 1997--Hearing on Teachers: The Key to Helping 
America Learn to Read.
    October 21, 1997--Hearing to Review the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission.

105th Congress, Second Session

    January 21, 1998--Field Hearing on National Testing.
    February 23, 1998--Education Standards and Testing in the 
States.
    April 22, 1998--Joint Hearing on ``IDEA Regulations''.
    May 5, 1998--Hearing on H.R. 3248, ``Dollars to the 
Classroom Act''.
    May 13, 1998--Hearing on ``First Things First: Review of 
the Federal Government's Commitment to Funding Special 
Education''.
    July 16, 1998--Hearing on H.R. 2710, The Rewarding 
Performance in Compensation Act.
    September 16, 1998--Joint Hearing on ``Education and 
Technology Initiatives''.

                   III. Markups Held by the Committee

105th Congress, First Session

    January 21, 1997--Full Committee Organizational Meeting 
(adopt committee rules and announce subcommittee assignments).
    February 13, 1997--Full Committee Meeting on Committee 
Budget and Oversight Plan for the 105th Congress.
    March 5, 1997--H.R. 1, Working Families Flexibility Act of 
1997.
    H.R. 914, to make technical corrections in the Higher 
Education Act of 1965 relating to graduation data disclosures.
    April 30, 1997--H.R. 1385, Employment, Training, and 
Literacy Enhancement Act of 1997.
    May 7, 1997--H.R. 5, IDEA Improvement Act of 1997.
    H.R. 1511, Cost of Higher Education Review Act of 1997.
    May 14, 1997--H.R. 1377, Savings Are Vital to Everyone's 
Retirement Act of 1997.
    June 11, 1997--Full Committee Markup of Committee 
Reconciliation.
    June 12, 1997--Instructions for FY 98.
    H.R. 1515, -Expansion of Portability and Health Insurance 
Coverage Act of 1997 (EPHIC).
    June 18, 1997--H.R. 1818, Juvenile Crime Control and 
Delinquency Prevention Act of 1997.
    H. Res. 139, Expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives that the Dept. of Education, States, and local 
education agencies should spend a greater percentage of Federal 
education tax dollars in our children's classrooms.
    June 25, 1997--H.R. 1853, Carl D. Perkins Vocational-
Technical Education Act Amendments of 1997.
    Continue Markup of H. Res. 139, Expressing the sense of the 
House of Representatives that the Dept. of Education, States, 
and local education agencies should spend a greater percentage 
of Federal education tax dollars in our children's classrooms.
    October 1, 1997--H.R. 2535, Emergency Student Loan 
Consolidation Act of 1997.
    October 7, 1997--Full Committee--Motion to authorize the 
issuance of four subpoenas for testimony in hearings on the 
Invalidated 1996 Teamster Election.
    October 8, 1997--H.R. 1625, Worker Paycheck Fairness Act.
    October 9, 1997--H.R. 2616, Charter Schools Amendments Act 
of 1997.
    October 22, 1997--H.R. 2614, Reading Excellence Act.
    November 5, 1997--Full Committee--Motion to approve the 
Contract Agreement with diGenova & Toensing, to provide 
services to the Committee in relation to the oversight 
investigation of the Teamsters election.
    November 6, 1997--Full Committee--Adoption of a Committee 
Print with Proposed Changes to the Committee Rules.

105th Congress, Second Session

    January 28, 1998--H.R. 2846, To prohibit spending Federal 
education funds on national testing without explicit and 
specific legislation. -
    February 12, 1998--Full Committee--Motion to approve the 
Contract Agreements with Frederick W. Smolen and with Philip A. 
Smith, to provide services to the Committee in relation to the 
oversight investigation of the International Brotherhood of 
Teamsters election.
    March 11, 1998--H.R. 3246, Fairness for Small Business and 
Employees Act of 1998.
    H.R. 2864, Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
Compliance Assistance Authorization Act of 1997.
    H.R. 2877, To amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act 
of 1970.
    H.R. 3096, To correct a provision relating to termination 
of benefits for convicted persons.
    H. Res. 267, Expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives that the citizens of the United States must 
remain committed to combat the distribution, sale, and use of 
illegal drugs by the Nation's youth.
    March 18, 1998--H.R. 6, Higher Education Amendments of 
1998.
    March 19, 1998--Continued Markup of H.R. 6--Higher 
Education Amendments of 1998.
    April 1, 1998--H.R. 2888, Sales Incentive Compensation Act.
    H.R. 2327, Drive for Teen Employment Act.
    Motion to approve Contract Agreements with Dan L. Anderson 
and Daniel F. Sullivan, to provide services to the Committee in 
relation to the oversight investigation of the IBT.
    Adoption of a Committee Print with proposed changes to the 
Committee Rules.
    June 4, 1998--H. Res. 417, Regarding the importance of 
fathers in the raising and development of their children.
    H. Res. 401, Expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives that social promotion in America's schools 
should be ended and can be ended through the use of high 
quality, proven programs and practices.
    H. Res. 399, Urging the Congress and the President to work 
to fully fund the Federal Government's obligation under the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
    H.R. 3892, English Language Fluency Act.
    Motion to Approve a Contract Agreement with Raymond Maria, 
to provide services to the Committee in relation to the 
oversight investigations of the International Brotherhood of 
Teamsters election.
    H.R. 3254, IDEA Technical Amendments Act of 1998.
    H.R. 3874, WIC Reauthorization Amendments of 1998.
    June 10, 1998--H.R. 2869, To amend the Occupational Safety 
and Health Act of 1970 to exempt safety and health assessments, 
audits, and reviews conducted by or for an employer from 
enforcement action under such Act.
    H.R. 2661, Sound Scientific Practices Act.
    H.R. 2873, to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act 
of 1970
    H.R. 3725, Postal Service Health and Safety Promotion Act-
    June 24, 1998--H.R. 3007, Commission on the Advancement of 
Women in Science, Engineering, and Technology Development Act.-
    H.R. 3248, Dollars to the Classroom Act.
    July 16, 1998--House-Senate Conference Meeting--H.R. 1385, 
The Workforce Investment Act of 1998.
    July 22, 1998--Adoption of a Committee Print with proposed 
changes to the Committee Rules with regard to deposition 
authority.-
    H.R. 4257, to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
permit certain youth to perform certain work with wood 
products.
    July 29, 1998--H.R. 4037, to require the Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration to recognize that electronic 
forms of providing Material Safety Data Sheets provide the same 
level of access to information as paper copies and to improve 
the presentation of safety and emergency information on such 
Data Sheets.
    H.R. 4271, Community Services Authorization Act of 1998.-
    H.R. 4241, Head Start Amendments of 1998.
    September 15, 1998--House-Senate Conference Meeting--H.R. 
6, Higher Education Amendments of 1998.
    September 29, 1998--House-Senate Conference Meeting--S. 
2206, Coats Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1998.
    October 6, 1998--House-Senate Conference Meeting--H.R. 
3874, William F. Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act 
of 1998.
    October 7, 1998--House-Senate Conference Meeting--H.R. 
1853, Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology 
Education Act of 1998.

                       IV. Legislative Activities

     A. Legislation Enacted Into Law (Bills Referred To Committee)

    H.R. 1003 (P.L. 105-12), Assisted Suicide Funding 
Restriction Act of 1997.
    H.R. 5 (P.L. 105-17), Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act Amendments of 1997.
    H.R. 1377 (P.L 105-92), Savings are Vital to Everyone's 
Retirement Act of 1997.
    S. 1505 (P.L. 105-128), Museums and Library Services 
Technical and Conforming Amendments of 1997.
    H.R. 3042 (P.L. 105-156), Environmental Policy and Conflict 
Resolution Act of 1998.
    H.R. 2864 (P.L 105-197), Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration Compliance Assistance Authorization Act of 1998.
    H.R. 2877 (P.L. 105-198), to amend the Occupational Safety 
and Health Act of 1970.
    H.R. 1385 (P.L. 105-220), Workforce Investment Act of 1998.
    H.R. 3152 (P.L. 105-221), Amy Somers Volunteers at Food 
Banks Act.
    H.R. 6, (P.L. 105-244), Higher Education Amendments of 
1998.
    H.R. 3096 (P.L. 105-247), to correct a provision relating 
to termination of benefits for convicted persons.
    H.R. 3007 (P.L. 105-255), Commission on the Advancement of 
Women in Science, Engineering and Technology Development Act.
    H.R. 2616 (P.L. 105-278), Charter School Expansion Act of 
1998.
    S. 2235 (P.L. 105-302), to amend part Q of the Omnibus 
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to encourage the use 
of school resource officers.
    H.R. 1853 (P.L. 105-332), Carl D. Perkins Vocational and 
Applied Technology Education Amendments of 1998.
    H.R. 2327 (P.L. 105-334), Drive for Teen Employment Act.
    H.R. 3874 (P.L. 105-336), William F. Goodling Child 
Nutrition Reauthorization Act of 1998.
    H.R. 4259 (P.L. 105-337), Haskell Indian Nations University 
and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute Administrative 
Systems Act of 1998.
    S. 459 (P.L. 105-361), Native American Programs Act 
Amendments of 1997.

   B. Legislation Enacted Into Law (Bills Not Referred To Committee)

    H.R. 1119, National Defense Authorization Act for FY 98 
(P.L. 105-85), (includes workforce restructuring, Volunteers, 
FECA, Marshall Plan/Korean conflict provisions under the 
committee's jurisdiction).
    H.R. 2014, Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-34), 
(includes ERISA provisions under committee's jurisdiction).
    H.R. 2015, Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33).
          H.R. 1515--Expansion of Portability and 
        Health Insurance Coverage Act of 1997;
          Higher Education Act is amended to return 
        reserve funds held by guaranty agencies; and
          Welfare provisions--language includes a 
        welfare-to-work program and several amendments to 
        Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), work 
        requirements (amends section 403(a), of the Social 
        Security Act ).
    H.R. 2400--Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 
(P.L. 105-178), (Sec. 8301 includes provisions to change the 
interest rate on student loans for a 3 month period from July 
1-September 30, 1998. These provisions were extended through 
H.R. 6, Higher Education Amendments of 1998, through July 1, 
2003).
    H.R. 3130, Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 
1998 (includes ERISA provisions; P.L. 105-200).
    H.R. 3616, Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization 
Act for FY 99 (P.L. 105-261) (includes impact aid and 
eligibility of DOD dependents at DOD schools provisions under 
the committee's jurisdiction).
    H.R. 4328, Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act for FY 99. (P.L. 105-277).
          Class Size Reduction Program (Sec. 307);
          H.R. 2614--Reading Excellence Act;
          Provisions of H.R. 2846--To prohibit spending 
        Federal education funds on national testing without 
        explicit and specific legislation;
          S. 442--Internet Tax Freedom Act (Simon, 
        Dole, Hatfield scholarship programs);
          S. 1723--American Competitiveness Act (H-1B 
        visas); and
          Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act.
    S. 1227*/H.R. 2226, to amend title I of ERISA to clarify 
treatment of investment managers under such title (P.L. 105-72) 
(includes ERISA provisions under the committee's jurisdiction).
    S. 1417, Hispanic Cultural Center Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-
127).
    S. 2112*/H.R. 3725, Postal Employees Safety Enhancement Act 
(P.L. 105-241).
    S. 2206, Coats Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1998 
(P.L. 105-285).
    S. 2432, Assistive Technology Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-394).
    *Senate bill not referred to Committee/Language identical 
to House referred bill.

                    C. Legislation Passed the House

    H.R. 1, Working Families Flexibility Act of 1997.
    H.R. 5, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 
1997.
    H.R. 6, Higher Education Amendments of 1998.
    H.R. 103, to expedite State reviews of criminal records of 
applicants for private security officer employment.
    H.R. 914, Cost of Higher Education Review Act of 1997.
    H.R. 1003, Assisted Suicide Restriction Act of 1997.
    H.R. 1377, Savings are Vital to Everyone's Retirement Act 
of 1997 (SAVER Act).
    H.R. 1385, Employment, Training, and Literacy Enhancement 
Act of 1977.
    H.R. 1818, -Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency 
Prevention Act of 1997.
    H.R. 1853, -Carl D. Perkins Vocational-Technical Education 
Act Amendments of 1997.
    H.R. 2327, -Drive for Teen Employment Act.
    H.R. 2535, -Emergency Student Loan Consolidation Act of 
1997.
    H.R. 2614, -Reading Excellence Act.
    H.R. 2616, -Community-Designed Charter Schools Act.
    H.R. 2846, -to prohibit spending Federal education funds on 
national testing without explicit and specific legislation.
    H.R. 2864, -Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
Compliance Assistance Authorization Act of 1998.
    H.R. 2877, to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act 
of 1970.
    H.R. 2888, -Sales Incentive Compensation Act.
    H.R. 3007, -Commission on the Advancement of Women and 
Minorities in Science, Engineering, and Technology Development 
Act.
    H.R. 3042, -Environmental Policy and Conflict Resolution 
Act of 1998.
    H.R. 3096, -to correct a provision relating to termination 
of benefits for convicted persons.
    H.R. 3152, -Amy Somers Volunteers at Food Banks Act.
    H.R. 3246, -Fairness for Small Business and Employees Act 
of 1998.
    H.R. 3248, -Dollars to the Classroom Act.
    H.R. 3874, -Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization 
Amendments of 1998.
    H.R. 3892, -English Language Fluency Act.
    H.R. 4037, -to require OSHA to recognize that electronic 
forms of providing Material Safety Data Sheets to provide the 
same level of access to information as paper copies and to 
improve the presentation of safety and emergency information on 
such data sheets.
    H.R. 4250, -Patient Protection Act of 1998.
    H.R. 4257, to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
permit certain youth to perform certain work with wood 
products.
    H.R. 4259, -Haskell Indian Nations University and 
Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute Administrative 
Systems Act of 1998.
    H.R. 4550, -Drug Demand Reduction Act.
    H. Con. Res. 27, recognizing the importance of African-
American music to global culture and calling on the people of 
the United States to study, reflect on, and celebrate African-
American music.
    H. Con. Res. 214, recognizing the contributions of the 
cities of Bristol, Tennessee, and Bristol, Virginia, and their 
people to the origins and development of Country Music.
    H. Con. Res. 202, expressing the sense of the Congress that 
the Federal Government should acknowledge the importance of at-
home parents and should not discriminate against families who 
forego a second income in order for a mother or father to be at 
home with their children.
    H. Res. 139, expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives that the Department of Education, States, and 
local education agencies should spend a greater percentage of 
Federal education tax dollars in our children's classrooms.
    H. Res. 267, expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives that citizens of the U.S. must remain committed 
to combat the distribution, sale, and use of illegal drugs by 
the Nation's youth.
    H. Res. 399, urging the Congress and the President to work 
to fully fund Federal government's responsibility under IDEA.
    H. Res. 401, expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives that social promotion in America's schools 
should be ended and can be ended through the use of high 
quality, proven programs and practices.
    H. Res. 417, regarding the importance of fathers in the 
rearing and development of their children.
    S. 459, Native American Programs Act Amendments of 1997.
    S. 1505, Museum and Library Services Technical and 
Conforming Amendments of 1997.
    S. 1723, American Competitiveness Act.
    S. 2235, to amend part Q of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
Safe Streets Act of 1968 to encourage the use of school 
resource officers.

           D. LEGISLATION PASSED THE HOUSE IN ANOTHER MEASURE

    H.R. 758, Truth in Employment Act of 1997. Passed the House 
in H.R. 3246--Fairness for Small Business and Employees Act of 
1998.
    H.R. 914, Cost of Higher Education Review Act of 1997. 
Passed the House in H.R. 1871--Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations for FY 98 and enacted as part of P.L. 105-18.
    H.R. 1312, to deem as timely submitted certain written 
applications of intent under impact aid for school year 1997-
1998. Passed the House in H.R. 914--Cost of Higher Education 
Review Act of 1997 and enacted as part of P.L. 105-18.
    H.R. 1511, Cost of Higher Education Review Act of 1997. 
Passed the House in H.R. 914--Cost of Higher Education Review 
Act of 1997 and enacted as part of P.L. 105-18.
    H.R. 1515, Expansion of Portability and Health Insurance 
Coverage Act of 1997 (EPHIC). Passed the House in H.R. 2015--
Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Passed the House in H.R. 4250--
Patient Protection Act of 1998.
    H.R. 1595, Fair Hearing Act. Passed the House in H.R. 
3246--Fairness for Small Business and Employees Act of 1998.-
    H.R. 1598, Justice on Time Act of 1997. Passed the House in 
H.R. 3246--Fairness for Small Business and Employees Act of 
1998.
    H.R. 1818, Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency 
Prevention Act of 1997. Passed the House in S. 2073--Juvenile 
Crime Control and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1998.
    H.R. 2226, to amend Title I of ERISA to clarify treatment 
of investment managers under such title. Passed the House in S. 
1227 and enacted as part of P.L. 105-72.
    H.R. 2449, Fair Access to Indemnity and Reimbursement Act. 
Passed the House in H.R. 3246--Fairness for Small Business and 
Employees Act of 1998.-
    H.R. 2535, Emergency Student Loan Consolidation Act of 
1997. Passed House in H.R. 2264--Labor/HHS/Ed Appropriations 
for FY 98 and enacted as part of P.L. 105-78.
    H.R. 2536, 21st Century Student Financial Aid System 
Improvement Act of 1997. Passed the House in H.R. 6--Higher 
Education Amendments of 1998 and enacted as part of P.L. 105-
244.
    H.R. 2614, -Reading Excellence Act. Passed the House in 
H.R. 4328--Making Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations for FY 99 and enacted as part of 
P.L. 105-277.
    H.R. 2846, to prohibit spending Federal education funds on 
national testing without explicit and specific legislation. 
Passed the House in H.R. 4328--Making Omnibus Consolidated and 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for FY 99 and enacted as 
part of P.L. 105-277.
    H.R. 3473, to amend the Age Discrimination in Employment 
Act of 1967 to allow institutions of higher education to offer 
faculty members who are serving under a contract or arrangement 
providing for unlimited tenure, benefits on voluntary 
retirement that are reduced or eliminated on the basis of age. 
Passed the House in H.R. 6--Higher Education Amendments of 1998 
and enacted as part of P.L. 105-244.
    H.R. 3725, Postal Service Health and Safety Promotion Act. 
Passed the House in S. 2112--Postal Employees Safety 
Enhancement Act and enacted as part of P.L. 105-241.
    H.R. 3871, to amend the National School Lunch Act to 
provide children with increased access to food and nutrition 
assistance during the summer months. Passed the House in H.R. 
3874--William F. Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act 
of 1998 and enacted as part of P.L. 105-336.
    H.R. 3872, to amend the National School Lunch Act to extend 
the authority of the commodity distribution program through 
fiscal year 2003. Passed the House in H.R. 3874--William F. 
Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act of 1998 and 
enacted as part of P.L. 105-336.
    H.R. 3873, to amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to 
simplify program operations and improve program management 
under that Act. Passed the House in H.R. 3874--William F. 
Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act of 1998 and 
enacted as part of P.L. 105-336.
    H.R. 4241, Head Start Amendments of 1998. Passed the House 
in S. 2206--Coats Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1998 
and enacted as part of P.L. 105-285.
    H.R. 4271, Community Services Authorization Act of 1998. 
Passed the House in S. 2206--Coats Human Services 
Reauthorization Act of 1998 and enacted as part of P.L. 105-
285.
    S. 442, Internet Tax Freedom Act (scholarship programs--
Simon, Dole, Hatfield). Passed the House in H.R. 4328--Making 
Omnibus Consolidated Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for 
FY 99 and enacted as part of P.L. 105-277.
    S. 1723, American Competitiveness Act (H-1B visas). Passed 
the House in H.R. 4328--Making Omnibus Consolidated Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations for FY 99 and enacted as part of 
P.L. 105-277.

  E. BILLS NOT REFERRED TO COMMITTEE THAT PASSED THE HOUSE CONTAINING 
             PROVISIONS UNDER THE COMMITTEE'S JURISDICTION

    H.R. 2646, Education Savings Act for Public and Private 
Schools (A+Savings Accounts Bill) (includes provisions under 
the committee's jurisdiction).
    H.R. 3130, Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 
1998 (includes ERISA provisions; P.L. 105-200).
    H.R. 3736, To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
make changes relating to H-1B nonimmigrant (includes expansion 
of the number of H-1B visas for skilled and technical workers 
and additional funds for technical education and training for 
American students and workers). --
    H. Res. 507, Providing Special Investigative Authority for 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
    S. 2073, Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency Prevention 
Act of 1998 (includes H.R. 1818, Juvenile Crime Control and 
Delinquency Prevention Act of 1997). -

                   F. LEGISLATION WITH FILED REPORTS

    H.R. 1, Working Families Flexibility Act of 1997 (H. Rept. 
105-21).
    H.R. 5, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
Amendments of 1997 (H. Rept. 105-95).
    H.R. 6, Higher Education Amendments of 1998 (H. Rept. 105-
481).
    H.R. 914, to make certain technical corrections in the 
Higher Education Act of 1965 relating to graduation data 
disclosures (H. Rept. 105-14).
    H.R. 1377, Savings are Vital to Everyone's Retirement Act 
of 1997 (SAVER ACT) (H. Rept. 105-104).
    H.R. 1385, Employment, Training, and Literacy Enhancement 
Act of 1997 (H. Rept. 105-93).
    H.R. 1625, Worker Paycheck Fairness Act (H. Rept. 105-397).
    H.R. 1818, Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency 
Prevention Act of 1997 H. Rept. 105-155).
    H.R. 1853, Carl D. Perkins Vocational-Technical Education 
Act Amendments of 1998 (H. Rept. 105-177).
    H.R. 2535, Emergency Student Loan Consolidation Act of 1997 
(H. Rept. 105-322).
    H.R. 2614, Reading Excellence Act (H. Rept. 105-348).-
    H.R. 2616, Charter Schools Amendments Act of 1997 (H. Rept. 
105-321).
    H.R. 2661, Sound Scientific Practices Act (H. Rept. 105-
730).
    H.R. 2846, to prohibit spending Federal education funds on 
national testing without explicit and specific legislation (H. 
Rept. 105-409).
    H.R. 2864, Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
Compliance Assistance Authorization Act of 1998 (H. Rept. 105-
444).
    H.R. 2869, Self-Audit Promotion Act of 1998 (H. Rept. 105-
731).
    H.R. 2873, to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act 
of 1970 (H. Rept. 105-732).
    H.R. 2877, to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act 
of 1970 (H. Rept. 105-445).
    H.R. 2888, Sales Incentive Compensation Act (H. Rept. 105-
558).
    H.R. 3096, to correct a provision relating to termination 
of benefits for convicted persons (H. Rept. 105-446).
    H.R. 3246, Fairness for Small Business and Employees Act of 
1998 (H. Rept. 105-453).
    H.R. 3248, Dollars to the Classroom Act (H. Rept. 105-710).
    H.R. 3254, IDEA Technical Amendments Act of 1998 (H. Rept. 
105-649).
    H.R. 3874, Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization 
Amendments of 1998 (H. Rept. 105-633).
    H.R. 3892, English Language Fluency Act (H. Rept. 105-587).
    H.R. 4271, Community Services Authorization Act of 1998 (H. 
Rept. 105-686).
    H. Res. 139, Expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives that the Department of Education, States, and 
local education agencies should spend a greater percentage of 
Federal education tax dollars in our children's classrooms (H. 
Rept. 105-349).

          G. LEGISLATION ORDERED REPORTED FROM FULL COMMITTEE

    H.R. 1, Working Families Flexibility Act of 1997.
    H.R. 914, to make technical corrections in the Higher 
Education Act of 1965 relating to graduation data disclosures.
    H.R. 1385, Employment, Training, and Literacy Enhancement 
Act of 1997.
    H.R. 5, IDEA Improvement Act of 1997.
    H.R. 1511, Cost of Higher Education Review Act of 1997.
    H.R. 1377, Savings Are Vital to Everyone's Retirement Act 
of 1997 (SAVER Act).
    H.R. 1515, Expansion of Portability and Health Insurance 
Coverage Act of 1997 (EPHIC).
    H.R. 1818, Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency 
Prevention Act of 1997.
    H. Res. 139, Expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives that the Dept. of Education, States, and local 
education agencies should spend a greater percentage of Federal 
education tax dollars in our children's classroom.
    H.R. 1853, Carl D. Perkins Vocational-Technical Education 
Act Amendments of 1997.
    H.R. 2535, Emergency Student Loan Consolidation Act of 
1997.
    H.R. 1625, Worker Paycheck Fairness Act.
    H.R. 2616, Charter Schools Amendments Act of 1997.
    H.R. 2614, Reading Excellence Act.
    H.R. 2846, to prohibit spending Federal education funds on 
national testing without explicit and specific legislation.
    H.R. 3246, Fairness for Small Business and Employees Act of 
1998.
    H.R. 2864, Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
Compliance Assistance Authorization Act of 1997. -
    H.R. 2877, to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act 
of 1970.
    H.R. 3096, to correct a provision relating to termination 
of benefits for convicted persons.
    H. Res. 267, expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives that the citizens of the United States must 
remain committed to combat the distribution, sale, and use of 
illegal drugs by the Nation's youth.
    H.R. 6, Higher Education Amendments of 1998.
    H.R. 2888, Sales Incentive Compensation Act.
    H.R. 2327, Drive for Teen Employment Act.
    H. Res. 417, regarding the importance of fathers in the 
rearing and development of their children.
    H. Res. 401, expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives that social promotion in America's schools 
should be ended and can be ended through the use of high-
quality, proven programs and practices.
    H. Res. 399, urging the Congress and the President to work 
to fully fund the Federal Government's responsibility under the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
    H.R. 3892, English Language Fluency Act.
    H.R. 3254, IDEA Technical Amendments Act of 1998.
    H.R. 3874, Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization 
Amendments of 1998.
    H.R. 2869, to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act 
of 1970 to exempt safety and health assessments, audits, and 
reviews conducted by or for an employer from enforcement action 
under such Act.
    H.R. 2661, Sound Scientific Practices Act.
    H.R. 2873, to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act 
of 1970.
    H.R. 3725, Postal Service Health and Safety Promotion Act.
    H.R. 3007, Commission on the Advancement of Women in 
Science, Engineering, and Technology Development Act.
    H.R. 3248, Dollars to the Classroom Act.
    H.R. 4257, to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
permit certain youth to perform certain work with wood 
products.
    H.R. 4037, to require the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration to recognize that electronic forms of providing 
Material Safety Data Sheets provide the same level of access to 
information as paper copies and to improve the presentation of 
safety and emergency information on such Data Sheets.
    H.R. 4271, Community Services Authorization of 1998.
    H.R. 4241, Head Start Amendments of 1998.

                         h. legislation vetoed

    H.R. 2646, Education Savings and School Excellence Act of 
1998 (A+Savings Accounts Bill) This bill was not referred to 
Committee.

         V. Committee on Education and the Workforce Statistics

Total Number of Bills and Resolutions Referred....................   525
Total Number of Hearings-.........................................   168
    Field-........................................................    41
    Joint with Other Committees-..................................     6
    Joint with Other Subcommittees of the Committee-..............     3
Total Number of Full Committee Markup Sessions-...................    28
Total Number of House-Senate Conferences Held-....................     0
Total Number of Bills Enacted into Law -..........................    30
Total Number of Bills Passed the House -..........................    43
Total Number of Bills Passed the House in Another Measure-........    23
Total Number of Filed Reports on Bills -..........................    27
Total Number of Bills Ordered Reported From Full Committee-.......    39
Total Number of Subpoenas Issued by the Full Committee-...........    47
Total Number of Bills Vetoed-.....................................     1

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS

                        I. Summary of Activities

   a. accessibility, affordability and accountability in health care 
                        coverage and retirement

ERISA Health Insurance Reform and Expanded Coverage (EPHIC)

    In the 105th Congress, the Committee initiated the 
legislative debate leading to the passage of ERISA health 
insurance reform and the expansion of health insurance 
coverage.
    Building on the record from the 104th Congress, H.R. 1515, 
the Expansion of Portability and Health Insurance Coverage Act 
of 1997 (EPHIC), was introduced on May 1, 1997, by 
Representative Harris Fawell with an introduction in the Senate 
by Senator Tim Hutchinson on May 8, 1997 (S. 729). The 
bipartisan legislation has 158 cosponsors. On June 10, 1997, 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce discharged H.R. 
1515 from the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations, 
approved it, as amended, on a voice vote, and ordered the bill 
favorably reported and incorporated into subtitle D of Title V 
of the reconciliation package, H.R. 2015, the Balanced Budget 
Act, transmitted to the Budget Committee.
    EPHIC amends ERISA in order to deliver further improvements 
in the availability, affordability, and accountability of 
health insurance coverage. EPHIC makes key health insurance 
reforms which will expand coverage and stop insurance fraud:
          (1) It would give franchise networks, union 
        collectively-bargained plans, bona-fide trade, business 
        and professional associations (e.g., chambers of 
        commerce, retailers, wholesalers, printers, 
        agricultural workers, grocers, churches, etc.) the 
        ability to form large ERISA group health plans, thereby 
        gaining the economies-of-scale so as to fully-insure or 
        self-insure the workers, spouses and children of 
        America's small businesses, just as large and mid-sized 
        businesses have been able to do for 23 years since the 
        passage of ERISA.
          (2) It will end the jurisdictional confusion that has 
        led to the proliferation of insurance fraud perpetrated 
        by ``bogus unions'' and other illegitimate operators by 
        drawing bright lines regarding State and federal 
        authority, by making legitimate association plans 
        accountable and by adding new civil and criminal tools 
        to end fraudulent schemes.
    The Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations set the 
stage for health insurance reform on May 8, 1997, by holding a 
hearing on EPHIC. The hearing focused on the need for the key 
elements of EPHIC, available and affordable health insurance. 
It is well documented that the most important incremental 
reforms that can be delivered to the American people are 
improvements in group to group portability, limiting 
preexisting condition exclusions and facilitating, through 
ERISA, the voluntary pooling of small employers on either a 
self-insured or fully-insured basis. The HIPAA legislation 
(P.L. 104-191, the Health Insurance Portability and 
Accountability Act) added needed protections for American 
workers in the first two areas--but more needs to be done to 
increase availability and affordability of coverage through the 
latter. Expanded coverage will become a reality if the cost of 
coverage can be made more affordable. Today, 80 percent of the 
43 million uninsured are in families with at least one employed 
worker, the vast majority of whom are employed by small 
businesses. Small business experts testified that 20 million 
Americans who now lack coverage might gain it under the type of 
pooling allowed under EPHIC--all through responsible changes 
that will expand choice in the marketplace. This is the kind of 
reform that Americans have demanded and deserve. Similar 
provisions were included in the Patient Protection Act (H.R. 
4250) as passed by the House on July 24, 1998.
    The Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations set the 
stage for managed care reform by holding a hearing October 23, 
1997, on H.R. 1415, the Patient Access to Responsible Care Act 
(PARCA). This hearing discussed the need to establish standards 
for relationships between group health plans and health 
insurance issuers with enrollees, health professionals, and 
providers. Subsequently the House passed the Patient Protection 
Act that amended ERISA to require group health plans to conform 
to new patient protections in the areas of disclosure, internal 
and external claims appeals, doctor-patient communications, and 
access to pediatric, obstetrical, gynecological and emergency 
room care.

Retirement security legislation

    Two Committee bills relating to retirement and pensions 
were passed by the 105th Congress. The Savings Are Vital to 
Everyone's Retirement (SAVER) Act, H.R. 1377, promotes 
retirement savings by American workers. The SAVER Act initiates 
a public-private partnership to educate American workers about 
retirement savings and directs the Department of Labor to 
maintain an ongoing program of public information and outreach. 
The bill also convenes a National Summit on Retirement Savings 
at the White House, co-hosted by the executive and legislative 
branches, to facilitate the development of a broad-based, 
public education program and develop specific recommendations 
for actions by both the public and private sectors to promote 
retirement savings among American workers. The House passed the 
SAVER Act, introduced by Congressman Harris Fawell, on May 21, 
1997, under suspension of the rules (the Committee favorably 
reported out the bill on May 14, 1997). The SAVER Act, 
sponsored by Aging Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA), 
passed in the Senate with minor modifications on November 7, 
1997. The House passed the Senate version on November 9, 1997 
and it was signed by the President on November 20, 1997 (P.L. 
105-92).
    Congress also passed H.R. 2226/S. 1227, legislation that 
will permit small investment advisers who are registered only 
with State security regulators to continue to serve as 
investment managers for pension plans. Without this bill, the 
practices of thousands of small investment advisers--and the 
pension plans of their clients--would be seriously disrupted as 
an unintended result of 1996 security reform legislation. The 
bill passed the Senate on September 26, 1997, the House passed 
the Senate bill, S. 1227 (identical to H.R. 2226 introduced by 
Congressman Harris Fawell), on October 28, 1997, and the 
President signed it into law on November 10, 1997 (P.L. 105-
72).
    In addition, a version of the Faculty Retirement Incentive 
Act (H.R. 3473, introduced by Congressman Fawell in March 1998) 
was incorporated as a section of the Higher EducationAmendments 
of 1998 (Title IX, Part D of H.R. 6, P.L. 105-244). This legislation 
amends the Age Discrimination in Employment Act to permit age-based 
voluntary retirement incentives for tenured college faculty. The 
subcommittee held a hearing on this issue on May 22, 1997.

B. PROMOTING ECONOMIC GROWTH FOR SMALL BUSINESSES AND GREATER WORKPLACE 
                              FLEXIBILITY

The Fairness for Small Business and Employees Act

    One of the Committee's major efforts on the labor side 
during the 105th Congress resulted in the successful passage of 
H.R. 3246, the Fairness for Small Business and Employees Act 
(FSBEA). The Act, which passed the House on March 26, 1998 by a 
202-200 vote, contains four separate titles addressing four 
specific problems with the National Labor Relations Act. The 
bill passed with a unanimous Goodling amendment (398-0) 
clarifying that the ``salting'' provision of Title I does not 
impact employees'' rights under the NLRA.
    H.R. 3246 is intended to level the playing field for small 
businesses and labor organizations and greatly assist employees 
waiting for justice from the National Labor Relations Board. 
This targeted bill seeks to remedy problems with the Board's 
enforcement of the NLRA. Title I provides protection to 
employers under the NLRA if they do not hire someone who is not 
a ``bona fide'' applicant. While it does nothing to impinge 
upon the rights of those who are on the job to do a good job, 
Title I gives employers a certain level of comfort that an 
applicant is at least half motivated to be a loyal, hardworking 
employee.
    Title II codifies the Board's longstanding practice of 
letting an employer present its side of a case in disputes 
concerning single location bargaining units. It ensures that 
the Board will not again try to push its ill-conceived, 
mechanistic proposed rule which would ignore many factors 
germane to whether a certain bargaining unit is appropriate.
    Title III requires that the NLRB render final decisions on 
most unfair labor practice charges within 365 days of their 
filing. The Board would be required to report to Congress many 
charges not resolved within that time. Title III thus offers 
employees whose lives are hanging in the balance the assurance 
of timely action.
    Finally, Title IV ensures that small businesses and small 
unions will have the incentive to fight meritless cases that 
the Board brings against them. If the Board is going to bring 
its vast resources and expertise to bear upon an entity with 
meager resources, then the Board would be required to pay the 
prevailing party's attorney's fees and expense if the agency 
loses the case.
            Committee action
    Chairman Goodling introduced the bill on February 24, 1998. 
Each title of H.R. 3246 consists of a bill previously 
introduced during the 1st Session of the 105th Congress-three 
by Employer-Employee Subcommittee Chairman Fawell. H.R. 3246 
was marked up in full Committee on March 11, 1998, and ordered 
reported favorably by roll call vote (yeas 23, nays 18, not 
voting 4). As noted above, H.R. 3246 was passed by the House on 
March 26, 1998. Sen. Hutchinson, R-AK, introduced the House's 
Title I, ``salting'' bill in the Senate as S. 1981, and on 
September 14, 1998, a cloture motion to proceed to 
consideration of the bill failed by a 52-42 vote.
    The Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee held extensive 
hearings during the 105th Congress on each of the four titles 
before the Subcommittee marked up the bill on February 26, 
1998, and ordered the bill reported by a roll call vote of 7 to 
3.
    Title I of the FSBEA is a narrowed version of H.R. 758, the 
Truth in Employment Act, which was introduced by Representative 
Harris Fawell on February 13, 1997. The bill gathered 120 
cosponsors. The Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations 
held a hearing on H.R. 758 on February 5, 1998, during which 
testimony was received on the legislation from five witnesses, 
while the Subcommittee held an earlier hearing on H.R. 758 on 
October 9, 1997, and received testimony from another five 
witnesses. Groundwork was laid in the 104th Congress on the 
``salting'' issue by 19 witnesses testifying at three hearing.
    Title II of the FSBEA is formerly H.R. 1595, the Fair 
Hearing Act, introduced by Representative Harris Fawell on May 
14, 1997. The Act gathered 40 cosponsors. H.R. 1595 was 
addressed at the Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee's 
February 5, 1998, hearing on Legislation to Provide Fairness 
for Small Businesses and Employees: H.R. 758, H.R. 1595, H.R. 
1598, H.R. 2449. Testimony on H.R. 1595 and the issue of single 
location bargaining unit determinations was heard from four 
witnesses.
    Title III of the FSBEA is formerly H.R. 1598, the Justice 
on Time Act, introduced by Representative Bill Goodling, on May 
14, 1997. The Act was addressed at the Employer-Employee 
Relations Subcommittee's February 5, 1998, hearing by three 
witnesses.
    Title IV of the FSBEA is formerly H.R. 2449, the Fair 
Access to Indemnity and Reimbursement (FAIR) Act, introduced by 
Representative Harris Fawell on September 10, 1997. The Act 
gathered 38 cosponsors. H.R. 2449 was addressed at the 
Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee's February 5, 1998, 
hearing by three witnesses. H.R. 2449 was also brought into the 
discussions of labor issues by Employer-Employee Relations 
Subcommittee Chairman Harris Fawell at two earlier EER 
Subcommittee hearings: Hearing on H.R. 758, the Truth in 
Employment Act of 1996, on October 9, 1997, and Hearing on 
Review of the National Labor Relations Board, on September 23, 
1997.
            Summary
    H.R. 3246 recognizes that Congress should be doing 
everything in its power to create an environment where small 
employers can be successful in what they do best-creating jobs 
and being the engine that drives America's economic growth. The 
Act also recognizes that the National Labor Relations Board, 
which is supposed to be a neutral arbiter of labor disputes, is 
applying the NLRA in a way that not only harms small 
employers--businesses and unions--but also does a great 
disservice to hardworking men and women who may have been 
wrongly discharged.
    Title I addresses the practice of professional agents and 
union employees being sent into non-union workplaces under the 
guise of seeking employment--commonly known as ``salting.'' 
This title amends the National Labor Relations Act to make 
clear that an employer is not required to hire someone who is 
not a ``bona fide'' employee applicant, in that the applicant's 
primary purpose in seeking the job is to further other 
employment or agency status. Simply put, if someone is not at 
least ``half'' motivated by a desire to be a genuine, 
hardworking employee, the employer should not have to hire 
them.
    Title II requires the NLRB to conduct hearings to determine 
when it is appropriate to certify a single location bargaining 
unit where a labor organization attempts to organize employees 
at one or more facilities of a multi-facility employer. This 
title simply requires the Board to consider all of the relevant 
factors--as the agency has done for decades--in making a unit 
determination. While the Board recently withdrew its proposed 
rule to implement a ``one-size-fits-all'' rule for determining 
the appropriateness of a single location bargaining unit, Title 
II would statutorily protect an employer's right to have a fair 
hearing to present evidence in support of its side of the case.
    Title III is intended to help remedy situations in which 
employees often wait more than a year for the Board to render a 
decision regarding their discharge. The legislation requires 
the NLRB to issue a final decision within one year on all 
unfair labor practice complaints where it is alleged that an 
employer has discharged an employee in an attempt to encourage 
or discourage union membership. Expeditious resolution of these 
complaints would benefit all parties not only by ensuring swift 
justice and timely reinstatement of a wronged employee, but 
also by reducing the costs of litigation and backpay awards. 
The title contains an exemption from the one-year time limit 
for ``extremely complex'' cases, and requires the Board to 
report annually to the House Education and the Workforce 
Committee and the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee on 
cases not disposed of within one year, including reasons for 
the delay and the Board's recommendations for prompt 
resolution.
    Title IV of the Act requires the NLRB to pay the attorney's 
fees and expenses to small employers of modest means--including 
businesses and labor organizations--who prevail in cases before 
the NLRB. Title IV applies to employers having not more than 
100 employees and a net worth of not more than $1.4 million. 
These eligibility limits represent a mere fifth of the 500 
employee/$7 million net worth limits of the Equal Access to 
Justice Act (EAJA), legislation passed in 1980 which was 
supposed to have leveled the playing field for small employers 
facing unwarranted actions brought by the federal government. 
However, the EAJA is underutilized at the Board and is simply 
not working for the nation's small employers.
    Title IV would make sure that the Board considers carefully 
the merits of an action before bringing it against a small 
entity with few resources, and would ensure that these smaller 
employers have an incentive to fight a case of questionable 
merit.

TEAM Act

    The Teamwork for Employees and Managers Act, H.R. 634, was 
introduced by Chairman Fawell on February 6, 1997. The Act 
seeks to promote greater employee involvement in the workplace 
and benefit both employers and workers, by amending the 
National Labor Relations Act to remove current roadblocks 
standing in the way of workplace cooperation. At the same time, 
the legislation protects the ability of workers to choose 
representation.
    A companion bill, S. 295, was introduced in the Senate by 
Sen. Jim Jeffords, R-VT, and was reported by the Senate Labor 
Committee on April 2, 1997. While similar legislation made it 
to President Clinton's desk in the 104th Congress (H.R. 743)--
unfortunately, to face a veto by the president--H.R. 634 
remained in a holding pattern in the House waiting for Senate 
momentum. Sen. Bingaman, D-NM, proposed compromise language in 
the Senate that received a welcomed boost from the Democrat 
Leadership Council, but the effort did not attract the support 
of any additional Senators.
    Chairman Fawell held a field hearing on the TEAM Act on 
June 16, 1997, in Oak Brook, Illinois, during which employee 
teams from several companies--including those from R.R. 
Donnelly Corporation and Tellabs, Inc.--testified about the 
benefits of the legislation. They demonstrated that the 
nation's labor laws must be relevant to the twenty-first 
century, and that employers can work 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 the 
nation.
    The TEAM Act would add a proviso to section 8(a)(2) of the 
National Labor Relations Act clarifying that it is not 
impermissible for an employer to establish or participate in 
any organization, in which employees participate, to address 
matters of mutual interest, including issues of quality, 
productivity, efficiency, and safety and health. It also 
specifies that such organizations have no authority to enter 
into or negotiate collective bargaining agreements.
    The legislation would legalize a broad range of employee 
involvement programs--and thus lend a measure of certainty and 
stability to currently ambiguous law--while making clear that 
the protections under the NLRA allowing employees to choose 
independent representation through a union remain firmly in 
place. The bill clarifies that company unions are prohibited 
and applies only in nonunion workplaces, thereby ensuring that 
employee involvement cannot be used as a means to avoid 
collective bargaining obligations. As the next Century draws 
closer, workplace productivity is increasingly tied to 
investing employees with decision-making authority over their 
work lives. The TEAM Act provides workers with a sense of 
control--of ``ownership''--that leads to more productive 
employees and a work environment in which everyone benefits.

      c. strengthening and promoting employees' individual rights

The Worker Paycheck Fairness Act

    The Subcommittee devoted significant time during the 105th 
Congress towards legislation granting union members the dignity 
and respect of having more control over how their hard-earned 
dollars are spent by their labor organizations. The Worker 
Paycheck Fairness Act,H.R. 1625, was introduced by Chairman 
Harris Fawell on May 15, 1997, and gathered more than 100 cosponsors. 
The Act addresses the problems rank-and-file union members have had 
when seeking rebates of dues money used for political and other non-
collective bargaining purposes. H.R. 1625 assures workers the right to 
determine whether unions may take money out of their paychecks for non-
collective bargaining purposes, and the right to know how their money 
is spent.
    The legislation creates a new federal right implementing 
the Supreme Court's 1988 decision in Beck v. Communications 
Workers of America. The Act also gives workers enforcement 
rights modeled on those granted by the Family and Medical Leave 
Act--including double damages and attorney's fees; requires 
unions to provide more detailed financial records; and requires 
employers to post a notice telling employees of these new 
rights. Rep. Fawell amended the legislation during the 
Committee's markup additionally to prohibit retaliation against 
workers exercising their rights under the bill.
    The Subcommittee followed two hearings in the 104th 
Congress by holding four hearings during the 105th Congress on 
the issue of mandatory union dues. On October 8, 1997, the full 
Committee marked up the legislation and ordered the bill to be 
reported by voice vote. While the Act was not voted on by the 
full House during the 105th Congress, the Committee's 
successful markup of union dues legislation was historic. The 
primary reason that H.R. 1625 was not considered by the Full 
House was the House's broader consideration of campaign 
finance, which, while including ``paycheck protection'' reform, 
addressed the issue of mandatory union dues primarily within 
the context of federal election law.
    Despite organized labor's claims that union members already 
have the right to dues rebates under the Beck decision and that 
current law adequately protects this right, the Subcommittee's 
hearings--held March 18, 1997, July 9, 1997, December 11, 1997 
(at a field hearing in San Diego, California), and January 21, 
1998-demonstrated that current law is inadequate. The 
Subcommittee heard from 27 witnesses in the 105th Congress, 
including 14 rank-and-file workers, that Beck rights have 
remained illusory. These witnesses described problems with lack 
of notice, the necessity under current law of resigning from 
the union, procedural hurdles, and, notably, the incredible 
indignities they often endure, including harassment, 
stonewalling, coercion, and intimidation, when they attempt to 
exercise their rights granted under the Court's Beck decision.
    Unions should be required to get written permission from 
union members before accepting payment of dues unrelated to 
collective bargaining, and they should provide accurate 
accounting of how they spend dues. The Subcommittee remains 
committed to legislation achieving these matters of basic 
fairness.

Impediments to union democracy

    During the 105th Congress, the Employer-Employee Relations 
Subcommittee initiated a series of hearings examining problems 
union members have in retaining a full, equal, and democratic 
voice in their union affairs. The ultimate, continuing goal is 
to identify possible areas in which the Labor-Management 
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA, or, the ``Landrum-
Griffin'' Act) might be improved to better safeguard members' 
democratic rights.
    Increasingly, the Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee 
was aware of reports of significant unrest among the rank-and-
file and reports of an erosion of the principles of union 
democracy. Forty years have passed since the enactment of the 
LMRDA. LMRDA is the only law that governs the relationship 
between labor leaders and their rank-and-file membership, 
although numerous laws govern the interaction of employers and 
employees. In 1959, the Senate Committee on Labor, chaired by 
Senator McClellan, after three years of hearings on the 
operations of unions, reported LMRDA, stating:

          Given the maintenance of minimum democratic 
        safeguards and detailed essential information about the 
        union, the individual members are fully competent to 
        regulate union affairs.

    The LMRDA is intended to protect and promote democratic 
processes and rights of union members, including the freedom to 
vote at meetings, to express any arguments or opinions, and to 
voice views upon union candidates and union business. The law 
also protects members' rights to financial information of the 
union; to participate in decision making; and to impose 
fiduciary obligations upon union officers, particularly in the 
use of union funds.
            Subcommittee hearings
    The Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations held four 
hearings on union democracy during the 105th Congress (May 4, 
1998; June 25, 1998; August 4, 1998; and September 24, 1998). 
The May 4, 1998, hearing received testimony from a variety of 
local union officials and rank-and-file--including the 
Carpenters, Laborers, and Boilermakers Unions--as well as from 
one of the country's foremost experts in union democracy, 
Professor Clyde Summers, who, at Sen. John F. Kennedy's 
request, fashioned a ``bill of rights'' for union members which 
became Title I of the LMRDA. The June 25, 1998, hearing brought 
in Herman Benson of the Association for Union Democracy, 
Carpenters' rank-and-file, and their general president, Douglas 
McCarron, who implemented a nationwide restructuring of the 
Carpenters, including the unilateral dissolving and merging of 
locals. The August 4 and September 24, 1998, hearings focused 
on election irregularities and lack of financial disclosure in 
the American Radio Association, an affiliate of the 
International Longshoreman's Association. The series will 
continue to examine problems with union democracy at a wide 
variety of unions in order to identify possible legislative 
solutions.

Legislation

    On October 10, 1998, Subcommittee Chairman Harris W. Fawell 
introduced H.R. 4770, a bill to amend LMRDA, entitled ``The 
Democratic Rights for Union Members'' or ``DRUM.'' DRUM was the 
first bill to result from the information obtained from the 
Subcommittee's hearings in an effort to initiate necessary 
reforms to LMRDA.
    The DRUM Act recognizes that rank-and-file union members 
are the strength of organized labor and that union policies and 
decisions should be responsive to the members. DRUM amends the 
LMRDA to enhance democratic rights in two specific areas: 
trusteeships and the election of officers of intermediate 
bodies. The Act's amendments are suggestions from two of the 
nation's foremost ``union democracy'' experts--Professor Clyde 
Summers, who fashioned at then--Sen. John F. Kennedy's request 
a ``bill of rights'' for rank and file members which become 
Title I of the LMRDA, and Herman Benson, founder of the 
Association for Union Democracy.
            Trusteeships
    Under current law, unions are able to place their locals 
under ``trusteeship'' in order to correct, among other 
problems, financial malfeasance, corruption, or other abuses. 
While legitimate trusteeships serve a valuable purpose, 
unfortunately, trusteeships can and are sometimes used to 
destroy local autonomy--especially if the local is at odds with 
national union policies--and hence, the democratic rights of 
local union rank-and-file members.
    Once a trusteeship is imposed, the LMRDA provides for an 
18-month presumption that it is legitimate. During this year-
and-a-half, the trusteeship cannot be overturned unless it can 
be shown by ``clear and convincing'' evidence that the 
trusteeship was not set up for one of the legitimate reasons 
provided for in the LMRDA.
    The DRUM Act simply removes the 18-month presumption, 
allowing locals and rank-and-file members to more easily test 
the validity of the trusteeship. Under this new legislative 
language, if challenged, the burden would be upon the 
international union to show by a preponderance of the evidence 
that the trusteeship is legitimate.
            Direct elections of officers of intermediate bodies
    Under current law, local union officers, since they 
represent the most ``grassroots'' seat of democratic power for 
the rank and file, must be elected not less than every three 
years by direct secret ballot. This law is being evaded by 
international unions consolidating locals in district councils, 
which take over the collective bargaining responsibilities and 
other functions of locals, including the running of hiring 
halls. Since the LMRDA allows officers of ``intermediate 
bodies'' to be elected by council delegates, an international 
with close ties to enough delegates is able to effectively 
control locals.
    The DRUM Act would simply require that officers of 
intermediate bodies which have assumed the rights and functions 
of locals be elected by direct membership vote, just as is 
required with local officers. This amendment would assure union 
members direct control of the officers who immediately effect 
their working lives as intended by the LMRDA.

     d. promoting efficiency and accountability in federal programs

Improving the fairness and efficiency of the EEOC

            Adequate funding
    The subcommittee undertook an extensive review of the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to ensure that the 
nation's leading civil rights enforcement agency is run in a 
fair, efficient, and professional manner. The EEOC continues to 
have a backlog of over 65,000 cases. A hearing was held at full 
committee on October 21, 1997 to assess the problems of the 
EEOC and a hearing was held by the subcommittee on March 3, 
1998 to recommend potential reforms. Speaker Newt Gingrich and 
EEOC Chairman Paul Igasaki were among the witnesses in March. 
At the March hearing, Speaker Gingrich and Subcommittee 
Chairman Harris Fawell laid out a plan whereby the EEOC would 
receive the most significant funding increase in the agency's 
history ($37 million) in 1999, provided the EEOC agreed to 
implementing certain reforms.
    The subcommittee, through negotiations with the EEOC and 
the appropriators, effected an agreement whereby (1) the EEOC 
will receive a 15% funding increase ($37 million) in FY 1999, 
(2) the new money will go to helping actual victims of 
discrimination by addressing the case backlog, through such 
avenues as increased use of mediation and improvements in the 
investigation and processing of charges of discrimination, and 
(3) the EEOC committed in writing not to utilize employment 
testers in the coming fiscal year.
            Testers
    In December 1997, the EEOC undertook a pilot project of 
using employment testers. The testers, assigned in pairs with 
theoretically ``equal'' credentials, would apply for entry-
level positions to see if they found discrimination. EEOC has 
let contracts to 2 outside groups (at a cost of about $200,000) 
to develop tester programs and train the testers (both minority 
applicants and non-minority ``controls''). The EEOC has not 
revealed to Congress the details of how the project operates, 
how targeted businesses were selected, or what minority groups 
are involved. Courts are divided as to the legality of using 
testers in employment.
    On July 15, 1998, concurrent with the House Appropriations 
Committee markup of the Commerce Appropriations bill (H.R. 
4276), EEOC Chairman Igasaki sent a letter to the Chairmen of 
the Education and Workforce Committee and the Appropriations 
Committee committing that the EEOC will not utilize employment 
testers in the upcoming fiscal year.

Review of the National Labor Relations Board

    The Subcommittee provided a boost for the House's 
successful effort to pass substantial NLRA-reform legislation 
(H.R. 3246) during the 105th Congress by reviewing the 
performance of the National Labor Relations Board at a 
September 23, 1997, hearing. The hearing demonstrated that the 
Board is not following its statutory mandate to act as a 
neutral arbiter of labor disputes.
    The Subcommittee recognizes that many in the employer 
community view the National Labor Relations Board as an out-of-
control, one-sided, biased arm of the Clinton 
administrationwhich has zealously pursued policy favoring organized 
labor. It is the view of the Subcommittee that the Board, as a quasi-
judicial body, one which serves as a prosecutor and judge of labor 
disputes, should strive to be above politics, rather than act in such a 
way as to give appearances of impartiality. The September 23, 1997, 
hearing, unfortunately, showed that that Board's bias against employers 
continues.
    Labor law experts-including former NLRB general counsel, 
Jerry Hunter--discussed recent Board and federal court cases to 
show the degree to which the current NLRB has continued to 
depart from established precedents and statutory provisions. 
Witnesses demonstrated that the courts increasingly have had to 
overturn erroneous and unlawful decisions of the Board--in such 
areas as pre-election conduct of unions, employee choice, 
salting, Gissel bargaining orders, and a general skewing by the 
NLRB of election results.
    In addition, employer witnesses shared the difficulties 
they have had with the Board in dealing with the substantial 
costs, disruptions, and heartaches of frivolous unfair labor 
practice charges and a National Labor Relations Board which 
appears to bend over backward to further the objectives of 
organized labor.
    The hearing also provided an opportunity to highlight 
Chairman Fawell's Fair Access to Indemnity and Reimbursement 
(FAIR) Act, H.R. 2449, legislation which automatically awards 
attorney's fees and expenses to small entities--small 
businesses and small labor organizations alike--who prevail 
against the Board. The bill, which ultimately passed the House 
in March 1998 as Title IV of H.R. 3246, levels the playing 
field for small employers, who obviously are outmatched by the 
NLRB in resources and expertise.

Family and Medical Leave

    Since the Commission on Leave's April 1996 report on the 
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, the Clinton 
administration and Congressional Democrats have asserted that 
the Act is working well with no problems. As the FMLA 
celebrated its fifth anniversary in August 1998, the Clinton 
administration touted the bill as a success and one of the 
easiest labor laws for employers to administer. The minority in 
the Senate and the House continued to introduce various bills 
in the 105th Congress to expand the Act, including lowering the 
threshold of applicability from 50 employees to 25, and 
allowing FMLA leave for school and community activities, 
literacy programs, and even for nursing mothers' breaks.
    The Committee created a record in the 105th Congress 
demonstrating that, in fact, current law and regulations are 
often confusing, vague, contradictory and difficult for 
employers to administer. It is clear expansion efforts are 
unwise, not only because they conflict with Congressional 
intent in passing the Act, but because the current mandate has 
significant problems that need fixing.
    On April 29, 1998, Chairman Fawell introduced with 
bipartisan support the Family and Medical Leave Clarification 
Act, H.R. 3751, which remedies numerous problems employers are 
having with the current law and regulations. The bill brings 
the FMLA's definition of ``serious health condition'' in line 
with Congressional intent when passing the Act in 1993. The 
bill also minimizes tracking and administrative burdens--while 
maintaining the original intent of the law--by allowing 
``intermittent'' FMLA leave to be taking in half-day 
increments, requiring employees to request that leave be 
designated as FMLA leave, allowing employers to require 
employees seeking FMLA leave for their own serious health 
condition to choose between unpaid FMLA leave--which Congress 
pointed to as insuring against abuses of the Act--and paid 
leave under a collective bargaining agreement or other plan of 
the employer, and requiring additional information on FMLA 
certification forms to assist employers in determining the 
validity of a leave request.
    A June 10, 1997, Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 
hearing on the FMLA revealed many of the problems H.R. 3751 
addresses. Testimony from recognized family-friendly 
corporations, such as Hallmark Cards and NYNEX, as well as from 
human resource professionals and attorneys, demonstrated that 
the FMLA currently causes more conflict than harmony in the 
workplace due to the ambiguity of the language of various FMLA 
provisions. Testimony also established that compliance with the 
FMLA too often presents unnecessary administrative and 
compliance difficulties that could be avoided with the passage 
of H.R. 3751.
    Until this Committee's efforts in the 105th Congress, 
Democrats' assertions that the FMLA has been trouble-free and 
thus ripe for expansion had gone unchallenged. The Committee 
established that there is compelling evidence that the Act has 
caused compliance problems for many employers, and that 
legislation such as the Family and Medical Leave Clarification 
Act is necessary to protect America's families and enable the 
FMLA to work as Congress intended.

Project labor agreements

    On June 5, 1997, President Clinton issued a Memorandum 
encouraging the use of project labor agreements by departments/
agencies with regard to the award of contracts for the 
construction of a facility to be owned by a federal department 
or agency, on a project-by-project basis, on large and 
significant projects. ``Large and significant'' projects are 
defined in the Memorandum to include those with a total cost to 
the federal government of more than $5 million. The President's 
Memorandum did not preclude the use of project labor agreements 
in leasehold arrangements and other federally funded projects.
    Essentially a project labor agreement binds all contractors 
and subcontractors on the project, whether they are union or 
nonunion members, to enter into specified agreements with 
appropriate labor organizations. The President's Memorandum was 
issued in lieu of an Executive Order after negotiations with 
Congressional Leaders.
    The Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations and the 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee 
on Education and the Workforce requested the Government 
Accounting Office to conduct a review of the use of project 
labor agreements on federal construction contracts and related 
matters. GAO found that the use of project labor agreements is 
largely unknown, because there is no complete or comprehensive 
database on the use of project labor agreements. Neither the 
Office of Management and Budget, nor the 13 federal agencies 
GAO reviewed maintained databases concerning the use of project 
laboragreements on construction contracts involving federal 
funds. Further, GAO found no source of complete information on the use 
of project labor agreements by State governments or the private sector.
    On July 9, 1997, the Committee contacted all departments 
and agencies to request they notify the Committee should 
project labor agreements be contemplated. Most departments and 
agencies stated that they do not favor or do not use project 
labor agreements. Only a limited number of agencies reported 
the use of project labor agreements through the balance of the 
105th Congress.

                 II. Hearings Held by the Subcommittee

105th Congress, First Session

    February 12, 1997--Defusing the Retirement Timebomb: 
Encouraging Pension Savings.
    March 18, 1997--Hearing on ``Mandatory Union Dues''.
    May 8, 1997--H.R. 1515, The Expanded Portability and Health 
Insurance Coverage Act (EPHIC).
    May 22, 1997--Hearing on Early Retirement in Higher 
Education.
    June 16, 1997--H.R. 634, the Teamwork for Employees and 
Managers (TEAM) Act.
    September 23, 1997--Hearing on ``Review of the National 
Labor Relations Board''.
    October 9, 1997--H.R. 758, the Truth in Employment Act of 
1997.
    October 23, 1997--H.R. 1415, The Patient Access to 
Responsible Care Act (PARCA).
    December 11, 1997--Mandatory Union Dues and the Abuse of 
Workers' Rights.

105th Congress, Second Session

    January 21, 1998--Hearing on ``Abuse of Worker Rights and 
H.R. 1625, the Worker Paycheck Fairness Act.''
    February 5, 1998--Hearing on Legislation to Provide 
Fairness for Small Business and Employees: H.R. 758, H.R. 1595, 
H.R. 1598, H.R. 2449.
    March 3, 1998--The Future Direction of the EEOC.
    May 4, 1998--Hearing on ``Impediments to Union Democracy''.
    June 2, 1998--Joint Hearing on ``Preparing Americans for 
Retirement: The Roadblocks to Increased Savings''.
    June 25, 1998--Hearing on ``Impediments to Union Democracy, 
Part II: Right to Vote in the Carpenter's Union?''
    July 15, 1998--Hearing on Pension Fairness for NBA 
Pioneers.
    August 4, 1998--Hearing of Impediments to Union Democracy, 
Part III: Rank and File Rights in the American Radio 
Association.
    September 24, 1998--Hearing on Impediments to Union 
Democracy, Part IV: Rank-And-File Rights in the American Radio 
Association.

                 III. Markups Held by the Subcommittee

105th Congress, Second Session

    February 26, 1998--H.R. 3246, Fairness for Small Business 
and Employees Act of 1998.

                      IV. Subcommittee Statistics

Total Number of Bills and Resolutions Referred to Subcommittee....   172
Total Number of Hearings..........................................    18
    Field.........................................................     2
    Joint with Other Committees...................................     1
Total Number of Subcommittee Markup Sessions......................     1
Total Number of Bills Reported From Subcommittee..................     1

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS

                        I. Summary of Activities

      a. enhancing worker safety through common sense reforms osha

    In May 1995, against the backdrop of consideration by the 
Committee of legislation to reform OSHA, President Clinton 
announced his Administration's program to ``reinvent'' the 
federal government's worker health and safety program. The 
President's announcement outlined three areas for change: 
emphasizing partnership along with traditional enforcement, 
streamlining and rationalizing regulations, and applying 
``common sense'' to enforcement by reducing paperwork and 
giving employers more flexibility in complying with 
regulations. Subsequent to the President's announcement, the 
Department of Labor undertook a lengthy series of initiatives 
to implement the ``reinvention'' of OSHA.
    In 1997 the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections held a 
series of three hearings on the implementation and 
effectiveness of OSHA's reinvention initiatives. The hearings 
were held on June 24, July 23, and September 11, and included 
witnesses from OSHA, employers and labor unions, and other 
experts familiar with OSHA's initiatives. Many of the witnesses 
described the reinvention initiatives as good-sounding but 
leaving OSHA's operations largely unchanged; others saw 
positive changes but worried that the changes would be short 
lived if left only to the status of informal agency directives.
    The Subcommittee on Workforce Protections also held two 
hearings in 1997 on regulatory actions by OSHA. The first was 
held on April 16, 1997 under the Congressional Review Act, to 
examine objections to OSHA's standard on Methylene Chloride. 
The hearing focused on concerns about certain scientific and 
legal shortcomings in the rulemaking process, and on the burden 
to small employers with paint removal and foam fabrication 
operations in meeting the deadlines imposed by OSHA's standard. 
Although the Committee on Education and the Workforce took no 
further action regarding the regulation, OSHA did subsequently 
delay the effective date of the standard for many small 
businesses.
    The Subcommittee on Workforce Protections held a hearing on 
May 21, 1997, to review the status of scientific information on 
ergonomics. The hearing explored the divergence of views and 
the uncertainty of knowledge in the scientific and medical 
communities about the nature, cause, and prevention of so-
called ``ergonomics'' injuries and illnesses. The hearing 
provided basis for legislation enacted as part of the 1998 
Labor Department Appropriations which prohibited OSHA from 
promulgating an ergonomics standard during fiscal year 1998, 
and a provision in the 1999 Labor Department Appropriations 
funding an independent study of ergonomics by the National 
Academy of Sciences.
    During the second session of the 105th Congress, the 
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections considered several 
legislative changes to the Occupational Safety and Health Act. 
Hearings on legislative proposals to reform OSHA were held on 
March 27, 1998, and April 29, 1998.
    The Subcommittee on Workforce Protections approved seven 
bills amending various aspects of OSHA. On February 4, 1998, 
the Subcommittee approved H.R. 2864, authorizing grants to 
states to provide compliance assistance and consultation 
services to small businesses, and H.R. 2877, prohibiting 
imposition or use of enforcement quotas for OSHA compliance 
officers. Both bills were subsequently passed by the Full 
Committee on Education and the Workforce, on March 11, 1998, 
and by the House of Representatives, on March 17, 1988. Both 
bills were passed by the Senate on June 24, 1998, and signed 
into law on July 16, 1998. They are P.L. 105-197 and P.L. 105-
198.
    On May 14, 1998, the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections 
approved four bills amending the Occupational Safety and Health 
Act. The bills are H.R. 2869, the Self Audit Promotion Act of 
1998; H.R. 2661, the ``Sound Scientific Practices Act''; H.R. 
2873, requiring fair notice of occupational safety and health 
standards; and H.R. 3725, the Postal Service Health and Safety 
Promotion Act. H.R. 2869 encourages the use of safety and 
health audits and assessments by insuring that these are not 
used unfairly against the employer. H.R. 2661 requires that 
OSHA insure that the scientific and economic data used in 
rulemakings is subject to peer review. H.R. 2873 requires OSHA 
to identify which industries will be covered by proposed 
standards. H.R. 3725 provides for coverage and enforcement of 
OSHA requirements in U.S. Postal Service workplaces. The four 
bills were subsequently passed by the Full Committee on 
Education and the Workforce on June 10, 1998.
    On July 29, the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections was 
discharged from further consideration of H.R. 4037, and on the 
same day the bill was passed by the full Committee on Education 
and the Workforce. H.R. 4037 would improve information on 
chemicals used in the workplace by amending OSHA's Hazard 
Communication standard to encourage greater electronic access 
to material safety data sheets required by the standard, and to 
require that certain basic information be attached to the front 
page of the material safety data sheet. H.R. 4037 was approved 
by the House of Representatives on August 4, 1998.
    On July 31, 1998, the Senate passed S. 2112, the Postal 
Employees Safety Enhancement Act, a companion bill to H.R. 
3725. On September 14, 1998, the House passed S. 2112. The bill 
was signed into law on September 28, 1998 and became P.L. 105-
241.

MSHA

    The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) regulates 
the safety and health conditions in approximately 14,000 
underground and surface mines, including coal mines, sand, 
gravel, stone, and mineral quarries, and processing facilities 
connected to those mines.
    The Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 establishes 
many of the standards with which these mines must comply. It 
also provides authority for MSHA to promulgate additional 
standards and to enforce the standards through inspections and 
enforcement actions. Among other things, the Act requires that 
MSHA inspect each underground mine at least four times each 
year and each surface mine at least two times each year.
    The Subcommittee reviewed the 1977 Act and MSHA's efforts 
to implement it during a hearing on July 30, 1998. Testimony at 
the hearing focused on two issues. One was the lack of 
targeting of enforcement by MSHA, which results in excessive 
time being spent on relatively safe mine facilities and 
contributes to excessive focus by MSHA inspectors on technical 
violations. Hearing participants also debated the continuation 
of Appropriations language which since 1980 has prohibited MSHA 
from enforcing its ``Part 48'' training regulations in sand, 
gravel, stone, phosphate, and limestone mines.
    Subsequent negotiations between MSHA and the affected 
industries resulted in MSHA agreeing to issue revised training 
regulations for these industries not later than October 1, 
1999.

b. reforming labor standards to meet the challenges of the 21st century 
                               workplace

    During the 105th Congress, the Subcommittee on Workforce 
Protections continued a series of oversight hearings, commenced 
during the 104th Congress, on the Fair Labor Standards Act of 
1938. The purpose of the hearings was to review the Act, along 
with its many underlying regulations, to determine which 
provisions need 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

    On January 7, 1997, Representative Ballenger introduced 
H.R. 1, ``The Working Families Flexibility Act.'' The purpose 
of the legislation is to provide private sector employers with 
the option of allowing employees to choose to take compensatory 
time off in lieu of overtime pay. The Subcommittee on Workforce 
Protections held one hearing on H.R. 1 on February 5, 1997. 
Witnesses testified about the need for an amendment to the FLSA 
to provide covered or ``non-exempt'' employees with more 
flexibility regarding compensation and scheduling issues. In 
addition, witnesses detailed changes in the work force and the 
workplace which have taken place 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.
    The Fair Labor Standards Act requires that hours of work by 
``non-exempt'' employees beyond 40 hours in a seven day period 
must generally be compensated at a rate of one and one-half 
time the employee's regular rate of pay. Exceptions to the so-
called ``40-hour work week'' are permitted, under section 7 of 
the FLSA for employees in collective bargaining agreements and 
for 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 employees who are exempt as ``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.
    The FLSA, as currently written, fails to accommodate such 
changes and stands in the way of employers and employees who 
may want to work out such mutually beneficial arrangements 
concerning compensation and scheduling. Employees who are 
classified as ``professional, administrative, or executive'' 
and who are exempt under the FLSA are permitted much more 
flexibility in their schedules than non-exempt employees. Only 
non-exempt employees are denied such flexibility under current 
law.
    On March 5, 1997, the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce favorably reported H.R. 1, as amended, by a roll call 
vote of 23-17. The bill includes 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. 1, an employer and employee must reach an 
express 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. Employees could opt for compensatory time only when 
they have worked 1,000 consecutive hours for the same employer.
    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 need for flexibility in operations. 
Finally, the bill provides that an employee may accrue no more 
than 160 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 was passed by the 
House, as amended, on March 19, 1997 by a roll call vote of 
222-210. The House bill was not acted on by the Senate prior to 
the adjournment of the 105th Congress.

Application of the FLSA to ``inside sales'' personnel

    The Subcommittee on Workforce Protections held one hearing 
on the treatment of inside sales employees under the Fair Labor 
Standards Act on May 13, 1997. Witnesses testified that an 
exemption written specifically for inside sales employees is 
necessary and appropriate because of changes in the manner in 
which the commercial world works in 1998 as compared to 1938, 
when the statute was written. The Fair Labor Standards Act and 
its accompanying regulations regarding sales employees have not 
been updated to reflect various technological changes-such as 
the increased use of computers, modems, facsimile machines, and 
the Internet-which have dramatically altered the way in which 
sales employees perform the duties of their job.
    Outside sales employees, many of whom perform the same 
duties as their inside sales counterparts, are exempt from the 
minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor 
Standards Act because they sell from outside of their 
employer's place of business, traveling to the customer's 
business establishment. While this may have been a typical way 
of conducting business in years past, technological advances in 
communication have enabled many outside sales employees to 
become more productive by working from within their employer's 
business establishment. However, once the employee performs the 
duties of the job from within the employer's business 
establishment, then the individual no longer qualifies for the 
exemption from minimum wage and overtime.
    In today's highly-competitive global marketplace, many 
individuals earn a living by selling goods and services to 
customers across the continent or across the globe. The pay 
structure of many of these sales employees is determined, in 
part, by how much they sell and many are compensated through 
bonuses, commissions, or incentive pay. Thus, for some 
individuals the FLSA has the ironic effect of preventing them 
from reaching their full income potential. For example, a sales 
employee may be restricted from working more than 40 hours per 
week because of the additional overtime cost to the employer. 
Yet, this has the unintended effect of placing a ceiling on the 
employee's income because he or she is prevented from working 
additional hours to generate additional sales and increase 
earnings. The Subcommittee on Workforce Protections heard 
testimony from several employees who wanted relief from the 
restrictions and inflexibility associated with the Fair Labor 
Standards Act.
    On November 7, 1997, Representatives Harris W. Fawell and 
Robert E. Andrews introduced H.R. 2888, ``The Sales Incentive 
Compensation Act.'' The purpose of the bill is to amend section 
13(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act to provide that certain 
specialized ``inside'' sales employees may be exempt from the 
minimum wage, overtime compensation and recordkeeping 
requirements. The exemption made by H.R. 2888 consists of a 
two-prong test: first, the employee must meet the requirements 
in the bill which outline specific functions and duties of the 
job; second, the employee's pay structure must meet the minimum 
requirements in the bill for a specified amount of base 
compensation in addition to compensation which is based on 
sales made by the employee.
    Specifically, H.R. 2888 would apply to any employee in a 
sales position if the employee has specialized or technical 
knowledge related to the products or services being sold; if 
the sales are made predominately to persons or entities to whom 
the employee has made previous sales, or if the employee's 
position does not involve initiating sales contacts; if the 
employee has a detailed understanding of the needs of those to 
whom he or she is selling; and if the employee exercises 
discretion in offering a variety of products and services.
    In addition, H.R. 2888 requires that the employee receive 
base compensation-determined without regard to the number of 
hours worked by the employee-of not less than one-and-one-half 
times the minimum wage in effect under section 6(a) of the Fair 
Labor Standards Act, multiplied by 2,080; and an additional 
amount of compensation equal to at least 40 percent of the 
minimum amount of base compensation which is based on each sale 
attributable to the employee.
    On March 5, 1998, the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections 
approved H.R. 2888, as amended, by voice vote and ordered the 
bill favorably reported to the Full Committee. On April 1, 
1998, the Committee on Education and the Workforce approved 
H.R. 2888, as amended, by voice vote. On June 11, 1998, the 
bill was passed, as amended, by the full House by a vote of 
261-165. It was referred to the Senate Committee on Labor and 
Human Resources, which did not act on the bill prior to the end 
of the Congress.

Addressing the employment needs of Amish youth

    On April 21, 1998, the Subcommittee on Workforce 
Protections heard testimony on the effect of the Fair Labor 
Standards Act on the employment needs of Amish youth. Witnesses 
testified about the conflict between the child labor 
restrictions under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the needs 
of the Amish to carry out their religious beliefs and 
lifestyle. Beginning in 1996, the U.S. Department of Labor 
initiated a series of enforcement actions against some members 
of the Amish community for employing persons under the age of 
18 in sawmills and small woodworking shops. As a result of 
these enforcement actions, several Amish shop owners and 
sawmill operators were assessed fines of several thousands of 
dollars. The enforcement actions also ended many of the 
employment opportunities for Amish youth under age 18.
    In the Amish community, youth conclude their formal 
education with the eighth grade and then progress to informal, 
hands-on education, working with their families to acquire 
vocational experience and practical skills in areas such as 
carpentry and farming. School age children are taught a 
vocation by working alongside a relative or other member of the 
community, learning the skills directly relevant to their role 
as an adult in the Amish community.
    In the past, conflict between the Amish belief and practice 
of ending formal education at age 14 and thereafter ``learning 
by doing'' and the child labor laws, which prohibit or restrict 
many types of employment by persons under age 18, was minimized 
by the Amish community's reliance on farming and agriculture as 
the primary vocation. Restrictions in the law which relate to 
the employment of persons under the age of 18 in agriculture, 
particularly for work on family farms, are less restrictive 
than those which would otherwise apply. However, economic 
pressures over the years, including the rising cost of land, 
have forced many Amish families out of agricultural 
occupations. The need to generate income to purchase land, pay 
taxes and medical bills have forced more and more Amish 
families into other non-agricultural occupations such as 
woodworking and carpentry.
    During the past two years, several Members of Congress and 
representatives of the Amish community attempted to work with 
the Department of Labor to find a solution to the conflict 
between the child labor restrictions under the FLSA and the 
needs of the Amish to carry out their religious beliefs and 
lifestyle. Unfortunately, those efforts were not successful in 
reaching a reasonable and practical solution which would 
accommodate the needs of the Amish, hence the need for 
legislation.
    On July 16, 1998, Representative Pitts along with 8 
cosponsors, introduced H.R. 4257. The bill would amend the Fair 
Labor Standards Act to permit certain individuals who are 
between age 14 and 18 to be employed in a sawmill or 
woodworking shop under certain conditions. The bill would allow 
the Amish to continue in their traditional way of training 
their children in a craft or occupation, while ensuring the 
safety of those who work in woodworking occupations.
    An amendment accepted during the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce's markup of the bill on July 22, 1998, made 
several changes to the bill to address safety concerns raised 
by some Democrat Members of the Committee. On September 28, the 
House passed the bill, as amended, by voice vote under 
suspension of the rules.
    H.R. 4257 would allow persons between age 14 and 18 to work 
in sawmills and woodworking shops, so long as they do so under 
the supervision of an adult relative or member of the same 
faith. The young person would not be permitted, under any 
circumstances to operate or assist in the operation of any 
power-driven woodworking machines. The young person must be 
protected from wood particles or other flying debris within the 
workplace by a barrier or by maintaining an appropriate 
physical distance from operating machinery. In addition, the 
individual must be protected from excessive levels of noise and 
saw dust by personal protective equipment. The bill was 
forwarded to the Senate, which did not act on the legislation 
prior to the close of the 105th Congress.

Clarifying the FLSA as it applies to motor vehicle driving by teenage 
        employees

    On July 31, 1997, Representatives Larry Combest, Gene 
Green, and Matthew Martinez introduced H.R. 2327, ``The Drive 
for Teen Employment Act.'' The purpose of the bill is to amend 
the Fair Labor Standards Act to provide for a change in the 
exemption from the child labor provisions for teenage employees 
under the age of 18 who operate automobiles and trucks. The 
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections held one hearing on a 
similar bill which was introduced by Representative Randy Tate 
during the 104th Congress.
    The Fair Labor Standards Act restricts persons under the 
age of 18 from working in any occupation which the Secretary of 
Labor shall find and by order declare to be particularly 
hazardous for the employment of children or detrimental to 
their health or well-being. Pursuant to this section of the 
Act, the U.S. Department of Labor has issued a series of 
``hazardous occupation orders.''
    Hazardous Occupation Order No. 2 (HO 2), issued in 1940, 
prohibits minors under the age of 18 from driving motor 
vehicles on public roads as part of their job duties. HO 2 
contains a limited exception to this general prohibition. The 
exception applies only to 16 and 17 year olds who operate 
automobiles or trucks weighing less than 6,000 pounds and with 
the following additional conditions: such driving is restricted 
to daylight hours; the minor holds a State license valid for 
the type of driving involved in the job performed and has 
completed a State-approved driver education course; the vehicle 
is equipped with a seat belt or similar restraining device for 
the driver and for each helper, and the employer has instructed 
each minor that such belts or other devices must be used; the 
driving does not involve the towing of other vehicles; and the 
motor vehicle operation is ``only occasional and incidental to 
the minor's employment.''
    It is the last condition which was the reason for 
consideration and adoption of legislation. In recent years, the 
Department has interpreted this regulation as prohibiting those 
under 18 from any driving during employment, except perhaps in 
``rare and emergency'' situations. This current interpretation, 
which is not required by the regulation itself, was announced 
in the context of enforcement actions against certain employers 
who had not received advance notice of the Department of 
Labor's narrow interpretation of the child labor laws.
    Not only is the Department's current interpretation not 
consistent with the regulation itself, but it has had the 
effect of denying important job opportunities for teenagers, 
without any demonstrated increase in safety. And it has 
resulted in innocent small business owners being fined by the 
Department of Labor on the basis of an interpretation of the 
regulation of which they did not even have notice.
    On March 5, 1998, the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections 
reported the bill, as amended, by voice vote. The Committee on 
Education and the Workforce reported the bill, as amended, on 
April 1, 1998. As passed by the Committee, H.R. 2327 put into 
law a new test with regard to the amount of time that teenage 
employees could drive, to allow them to drive up to one-third 
of a workday, one-fifth of a workweek and 50 miles from the 
place of employment.
    The bill also retained all of the other conditions on 
teenage drivers that are part of the current regulation: the 
vehicle weighs less than 6,000 pounds; the driving is 
restricted to daylight hours; the minor holds a State driver's 
license; the vehicle is equipped with a seat belt or similar 
restraining device for the driver and for each helper, and the 
employer has instructed each minor that seat belts must be 
used; the driving does not involve the towing of other 
vehicles; and the driving is ``occasional and incidental'' to 
the minor's employment.
    Subsequent to the Committee's markup of the bill, the 
sponsors of the bill had lengthy negotiations with the 
Department of Labor and other interested Members of the 
Committee. These talks resulted in the development of a 
bipartisan, substitute amendment to H.R. 2327, which the House 
approved by voice vote under suspension of the rules on 
September 28, 1998. The House passed bill retains all of the 
other conditions (listed above) that are a part of the current 
regulation and the Committee-passed bill. In addition, only 17 
year olds would be permitted to drive during employment and the 
driving is restricted to within 30 miles of the employer's 
establishment. There is also a limitation on the number of 
trips per day that a 17 year old may drive for the purposes of 
delivering packages or transporting other persons. The bill 
would apply to all pending cases, actions, or citations in 
which a final judgment has not been entered, except those 
involving property damage or personal injury.
    H.R. 2327 would not decrease safety on the roads or 
endanger young people. It provides a reasonable and practical 
solution to the Department of Labor's overly restrictive and 
unfairly enforced interpretation, which has denied job 
opportunities to young people without increasing safety. These 
new restrictions will make driving on the job by teens safer, 
and employers will still have every incentive to ensure that 
their teenage employees drive safely.
    On October 12, 1998, H.R. 2327 was passed by the Senate 
with an amendment to clarify the effective date of the 
legislation. The House agreed to the Senate amendment by voice 
vote under suspension of the rules on October 13, 1998. H.R. 
2327 was enacted into law on October 31, 1998, as P.L. 105-334.

Clarifying the application of the FLSA to certain volunteers at private 
        non-profit food banks

    On February 4, 1998, Representative Tom Campbell introduced 
H.R. 3152, a bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to 
clarify the Act's treatment of certain volunteers at private, 
non-profit food banks. While the Department of Labor's current 
position is that individuals who volunteer at food banks and 
receive groceries and food items from the food banks are not 
employees for the purposes of the minimum wage and overtime 
requirements, there have been several conflicting and 
inconsistent statements and letters from the Department of 
Labor regarding this issue and therefore there is a need to 
clarify this point in the statute. Food banks which use 
volunteers and encourage volunteerism among those who receive 
food assistance should be able to do so without concern that 
they are triggering an employment relationship including wage 
and other employment liabilities.
    On June 25, 1998, the House considered and passed H.R. 
3152, as amended, by unanimous consent. The bill provides 
clarification that food banks may give groceries and food items 
to individuals who volunteer their services to the food bank 
solely for humanitarian purposes without deeming those 
individuals as employees. On July 29, 1998, the bill passed the 
Senate by unanimous consent and became P.L. 105-221 on August 
7, 1998.

Rewarding Performance in Compensation Act

    On October 23, 1997, Subcommittee Chairman Cass Ballenger 
introduced H.R. 2710, ``The Rewarding Performance in 
Compensation Act.'' The bill would amend the Fair Labor 
Standards Act to remove barriers within the law which have the 
effect of discouraging employers from providing bonuses to 
hourly paid employees. Under current law, certain payments to 
employees-such as commissions, incentive or performance 
bonuses-must be calculated as part of the employee's regular 
rate of pay for the purposes of determining the overtime pay 
rate.
    On July 16, 1998, the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections 
held a hearing on the bill. Witnesses testified that the Act's 
requirements often discourage employers from monetarily 
rewarding employees for good performance. Many employers have 
found that rewarding employees for high quality work can 
improve performance and the ability of the company to compete. 
While employers can easily provide additional compensation 
based on performance to executive, administrative, or 
professional employees who are not covered by the Act, an 
employer who chooses to provide similar compensation to hourly 
paid employees can be burdened with unpredictable and complex 
overtime liabilities. As the witnesses testified, rather than 
go through this process, many employers simply do not make 
their hourly employees eligible for performances bonuses. There 
was no further action taken on H.R. 2710 prior to the 
conclusion of the 105th Congress.

H-2A and H-1B visa changes

    The strong economy and low overall unemployment, combined 
with targeted enforcement of immigration laws, has resulted in 
shortages of workers in a number of agricultural areas and 
crops. The major immigration program designed to address such 
shortages, the ``H-2A'' program has been criticized for its 
delays and ``red tape'' that make it difficult for growers with 
time sensitive labor needs to use.
    On September 12, 1997, the Subcommittee on Workforce 
Protections held a hearing in Newland, North Carolina, on 
agricultural workforce issues, including the H-2A program, 
focusing on one area of agriculture, Christmas tree farming. In 
1996 North Carolina had the largest number of H-2A workers 
approved of any State, largely because growers in the State 
created an organization with full-time professional staff to 
anticipate the timeliness problems and navigate the red tape of 
the program; yet the delays and obstacles often frustrate its 
usefulness. Christmas tree growers also testified to their 
inconsistent treatment under federal labor laws: for purposes 
of the agricultural exemptions to overtime pay, they are not 
considered agriculture, but purposes of additional regulation 
under other labor laws Christmas tree farming is considered 
agriculture.
    Legislation to address the problems with the current H-2A 
program was passed by the Senate as an amendment to S. 2260, 
the Commerce-State-Justice Appropriations. However, H-2A 
provisions were dropped from the bill during final negotiations 
on Department of Justice programs.
    A second immigration bill which included provisions under 
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce was included in H.R. 4328 (P.L. 105-277). The 
legislation increased the number of H-1B visas for skilled and 
technical workers for (2) years. It also included new 
conditions on H-1B dependent employers who hire large numbers 
of H-1B workers. In addition, the legislation creates a fee on 
each new H-1B visa, each renewal of an H-1B visa, and each 
change in employment by an H-1B visa holder. The funds so 
generated are dedicated to administration and enforcement of 
the H-1B program, training grants distributed under the 
Workforce Investment Act to retrain current employees, and 
scholarships and other programs to improve science education, 
administered by the National Science Foundation.

The Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act

    On June 27, 1997, the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections 
held a hearing in Biglerville, Pennsylvania, on the Migrant and 
Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act. The purpose of the 
hearing was to identify problems which result from the 
implementation,interpretation and enforcement of the Act. The 
hearing also reviewed regulations recently promulgated by the 
Department of Labor regarding the levels of insurance required for 
vehicles which transport agricultural workers, and regulations which 
modified the definition of ``joint employment'' under the Act.
    On April 21, 1998, the Subcommittee on Workforce 
Protections held a hearing on H.R. 2038, the ``MSPA 
Clarification Act of 1997,'' which was introduced by 
Representative Charles T. Canady. The bill would make a number 
of changes to the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker 
Protection Act in order to clarify various provisions in the 
Act which have an adverse effect on farm workers and 
agricultural employers. There was no further action taken on 
the bill prior to the end of the Congress.

         C. EXECUTIVE BRANCH ACCOUNTABILITY IN FEDERAL PROGRAMS

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 extended also 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 July 30, 
1997. Witnesses testified that Davis-Bacon serves to reduce 
employment opportunities for minorities, particularly African-
Americans. In addition, the Department of Labor's Inspector 
General discussed the inaccurate data used in wage 
determinations.
    The Subcommittee has closely followed an investigation 
initiated by the Oklahoma Department of Labor into allegations 
of fraud and abuse in Davis-Bacon wage determinations. On July 
16, 1997, a federal jury convicted retired Oklahoma City union 
business agent Andre Whitson on 14 counts of fraud for 
falsifying wage information sent to the U.S. Department of 
Labor under the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage law. Mr. Whitson 
received six months in jail and a $7,000 fine. Mr. Witson's 
conviction highlighted problems with the Davis-Bacon law's 
requirement for government-established wages.
    In addition, the Subcommittee requested that the Government 
Accounting Office review Department of Labor's efforts to 
verify wage data submitted under the Davis-Bacon Act, as 
mandated in the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, 
HHS, Education, and Related Agencies report for fiscal year 
1998.

Workers compensation for Federal employees

    The Federal Employees' Compensation Act or FECA (5 U.S.C. 
8118) is a comprehensive workers' compensation law for federal 
employees that is designed to provide uniform coverage for 
work-related injuries or deaths. FECA covers an estimated 3 
million federal employees and postal workers. The last overhaul 
of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act occurred in 1974. 
The Subcommittee on Workforce Protections held a hearing on 
FECA on September 30, 1997. The last hearing held prior to 
September 30th was April 30, 1991 and was held in response to 
problems that claimants were experiencing with the FECA 
program.
    Witnesses at the September 30, 1997, hearing provided a 
general overview of how the FECA program works, its benefits 
and services, including a new program aimed at helping injured 
workers return to the workplace. Department of Labor's 
Inspector General discussed efforts to identify and eradicate 
fraud in the FECA program.
    FECA is the workers' compensation law for civilian federal 
employees and postal workers. Several classes of non-federal 
employees, such as law enforcement officers injured in 
connection with federal crimes and VISTA and Peace Corps 
volunteers are also covered by FECA. FECA authorizes the 
government to compensate employees when they are temporarily or 
permanently disabled due to an injury or disease sustained 
while performing their duties. Other benefits provided by FECA 
include payments for lost wages resulting from an injury, 
medical expenses, vocational rehabilitation services, bodily 
impairment or disfigurement, and survivor's compensation.
    According to the Office of Workers' Compensation (OWCP), in 
FY 1995 there were 180,350 new cases filed and the Federal 
Employees Compensation Program provided $1.9 billion in 
benefits for work-related injuries or illnesses to more than 
273,000 federal workers. Wage loss compensation accounted for 
$1.3 billion in benefit payments, medical/rehabilitation 
services were $467 million, and payments to surviving 
dependents for death benefits totaled $115 million.
    FECA costs have risen from $946 million in 1981 to $1.9 
billion in 1995. For instance, a February 1996 audit by the 
Inspector General's (IG) for 13 agency workers' compensation 
programs found that 12 out 13 employing agencies were not 
adequately verifying their FECA chargeback cost reports. As a 
result, 10 Inspector General's identified thousands of dollars 
in overpayments and millions of dollars in projected 
questionable payments. For instance, at the Department of 
Agriculture, the report showed that 153 of the 2,235 long-term 
claimants received about $1 million in overpayments which had 
not been detected. The IG report also showed that 9 agencies 
did not have effective return-to-work programs. For instance, 
the Department of Interior did not ensure that injured 
employees were returned to work when authorized by a physician 
and as a result, the Department of Interior paid $1.2 million 
in tax-free compensation costs to 39 of 78 injured employees 
who could have been working.
    The Employment Standards Administration (ESA) oversees the 
Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP). The OWCP 
administers the 3 major workers' compensation programs (FECA, 
Longshore, and Black Lung). The OWCP has 10 regional offices.
    The Employees' Compensation Fund pays out benefits under 
FECA and is administered by the OWCP. The fund is replenished 
through what is known as an agency ``chargeback'' system. 
Agencies funded through the annual appropriation process (DOD, 
HHS, etc.) include their workers' compensation costs in their 
annual budget request to Congress. Other quasi-government 
agencies such as the Postal Service or TVA pay the costs 
associated with the program out of operating revenues and also 
contribute to the administrative cost of the program on a pro-
rata basis. Agencies make payments into the Employees' 
Compensation Fund on the first month of the subsequent fiscal 
year--generally 15 months after the period billed. This lag in 
payments means that agency remittances are insufficient to 
cover current outlays, due to cost-of-living increases in wage 
loss benefits and medical cost inflation. The annual Department 
of Labor appropriation makes up the difference. As of June 
1997, FECA chargeback costs to the government were down .4 
percent from the previous year. This is the first decrease 
since 1960.
    The Department of Defense has the highest chargeback costs 
at $603 million, followed by the Postal Service at $537 
million. According to OWCP's FY 1995 annual report, chargeback 
costs have remained stable when adjusted for wage and cost-of-
living increases over the last three years. OWCP reports 
increases of total costs of 5.4 percent in chargeback year 
1993, 3.2 percent in 1994, and 1.2 percent in 1995. OWCP also 
states that expenses for a small number of cases are not 
charged back to agencies but are covered by the Department of 
Labor appropriation process. For FY 1995, these non-chargeback 
expenses amounted to approximately $45 million. Most of these 
costs are for injuries that occurred prior to December 1, 1960 
when the chargeback system went into effect.
            Technical amendment to FECA
    H.R. 3096 was introduced by Representative James C. 
Greenwood on January 27, 1998. The Subcommittee on Workforce 
Protections approved the bill by voice vote on February 4, 
1998, and ordered it favorably reported to the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce. On March 11, 1998, the Committee 
on Education and the Workforce approved H.R. 3096 by voice 
vote, and ordered the bill favorably reported to the U.S. House 
of Representatives. H.R. 3096 was signed into law by the 
President on October 9, 1998. It became P.L. 105-247.
    H.R. 3096 amends the Federal Employees' Compensation Act to 
provide a technical correction to Title 5, Section 8148(a), 
United States Code. In the 103rd Congress, two legislative 
changes were enacted to eliminate fraud and abuse in the 
federal workers' compensation program. First, Congress added a 
new section, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 8148, forfeiture of benefits by 
convicted felons, to FECA to require the termination of an 
individual's workers' compensation benefits upon that 
individual's conviction under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1920. Second, 
Congress amended 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1920 to make a violation of 
Section 1920 a felony for acts occurring on or after September 
30, 1994. The amendment to FECA, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 8148(a), reads 
in pertinent part as follows:
    Any individual convicted of a violation of section 1920 of 
title 18, or any other federal or State criminal statute 
relating to fraud in the application for a receipt [emphasis 
added] of any benefit under this subchapter or subchapter III 
of this chapter, shall forfeit (as of the date of such 
conviction) any entitlement to any benefit such individual 
would otherwise be entitled to under this subchapter or 
subchapter III for any injury occurring on or before the date 
of such conviction. Such forfeiture shall be in addition to any 
action the Secretary may take under section 8106 or 8129.
    However, the corresponding wording in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1920 
reads as follows:

          Whoever knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, 
        or covers up a material fact, or makes a false, 
        fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation, 
        or makes or uses a false statement or report knowing 
        the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent 
        statement or entry in connection with the application 
        for or receipt [emphasis added] of compensation or 
        other benefit or payment under subchapter I or III of 
        chapter 81 of title 5, shall be guilty of perjury, and 
        on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine under 
        this title, or by imprisonment for not more than 5 
        years, or both; but if the amount of the benefits 
        falsely obtained does not exceed $1,000, such person 
        shall be punished by a fine under this title, or by 
        imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or both.

    As the bolded statements indicate above, there is a minor 
difference between the legislative language in 5 U.S.C. 
Sec. 8148(a) and the corresponding language in the criminal 
code, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1920. It is possible to read the language 
in FECA as requiring the termination of benefits only where 
fraud was committed in the initial application for benefits, 
rather than in conjunction with subsequent receipt of 
compensation benefits. In effect, this could potentially allow 
an individual to receive compensation benefits even though the 
individual was convicted of committing FECA fraud.
    A minor clarification(changing ``a receipt'' in 5 U.S.C. 
Sec. 8148 to ``or receipt''--clearly prohibits these 
individuals from receiving benefits. Changing this wording 
makes 5 U.S.C. Sec. 8148 read the same as the corresponding 
part in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1920.

                 II. Hearings Held by the Subcommittee

105th Congress, First Session

    February 5, 1997 H.R. 1--the Working Families Flexibility 
Act.
    April 16, 1997--Hearing under the Congressional Review Act 
on OSHA's Methylene Chloride rule.
    May 13, 1997--Treatment of Inside Sales Personnel and 
Public Sector Volunteers Under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
    May 21, 1997--Hearing to Review the Status of Scientific 
Information on Ergonomics.
    June 24, 1997--Hearing to Examine the Occupational Safety 
and Health Administration's (OSHA) Reinvention Project.
    June 27, 1997--Hearing on the Migrant and Seasonal 
Agricultural Worker Protection Act.
    August 23, 1997--Hearing to Examine the Occupational Safety 
and Health Administration's (OSHA) Reinvention Project.
    July 30, 1997--Joint Hearing to Review the Davis-Bacon Act.
    September 11, 1997---Hearing to Examine the Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) Reinvention Project.
    September 12, 1997---Hearing on Issues Relating to Migrant 
and Seasonal Agricultural Workers and Their Employers.
    September 30, 1997---Hearing to Review the Federal 
Employees' Compensation Act (FECA).

105th Congress, Second Session

    March 24, 1998--Federal Employment Compensation Act.
    March 27, 1998--Review of Pending OSHA Legislation.
    April 21, 1998--Hearing on ``Issues Under the Migrant and 
Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, and the Effect of 
the Fair Labor Standards Act on Amish Families.''
    April 29, 1998--Hearing on ``Pending OSHA Legislation''.
    May 18, 1998--Field Hearing on ``American Worker Project: 
Workplace Competitiveness--The State of the Garment Industry in 
California''.
    August 16, 1998--Hearing on H.R. 2710, the Rewarding 
Performance in Compensation Act.
    August 30, 1998--Hearing on The Federal Mine Safety and 
Health Act of 1977.

                 III. Markups Held by the Subcommittee

105th Congress, Second Session

    February 4, 1998--H.R. 2864, Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration Compliance Assistance Authorization Act of 1997.
    H.R. 2877, to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act 
of 1970.
    H.R. 3096, to correct a provision relating to termination 
of benefits for convicted persons.
    March 5, 1998--H.R. 2327, Drive for Teen Employment Act.
    H.R. 2888, Sales Incentive Compensation Act.
    May 14, 1998--H.R. 2869, to amend the Occupational Safety 
and Health Act of 1970 to exempt safety and health assessments, 
audits, and reviews conducted by or for an employer from 
enforcement action under such Act.
    H.R. 2661, Sound Scientific Practices Act.
    H.R. 2873, to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act 
of 1970.
    H.R. 3725, Postal Service Health and Safety Promotion Act.

                      IV. Subcommittee Statistics

Total Number of Bills and Resolutions Referred to Subcommittee-...    78
Total Number of Hearings -........................................    18
    Field-........................................................     2
    Joint with Other Committees-..................................     1
Total Number of Subcommittee Markup Sessions -....................     3
Total Number of Bills Reported From Subcommittee -................     9

                SUBCOMMITTEE ON POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

                        I. Summary of Activities

                         a. job training reform

H.R. 1385, the Workforce Investment Act

    During the 105th Congress, the Subcommittee on 
Postsecondary Education, Training, and Life-Long Learning 
focused on reform of this nation's federal workforce investment 
and literacy programs. Reports from the U.S. General Accounting 
Office (GAO) highlighting the excessive number of federally 
funded employment and training programs, as well as conflicting 
reports on the quality of the U.S. workforce investment system, 
sparked both public and Congressional interest in reform of 
these programs.
    The Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education, Training, and 
Life-Long Learning held hearings on February 11, 1997, February 
25, 1997, February 27, 1997, and March 4, 1997, on reform of 
the major federal employment, job training, adult education, 
literacy, and vocational rehabilitation programs.
    The February 11, 1997 hearing in Washington, D.C., examined 
how job training laws can be changed to encourage and support 
State and local innovation and reform. The Subcommittee 
received testimony from Governor John Engler of Michigan, and 
State Senator David Steele of Utah. The Subcommittee also 
received testimony from other State and local officials and 
leaders with expertise in the provision of employment and 
training services and programs.
    The February 25, 1997 hearing in Washington, D.C., focused 
on the Adult Education Act and family literacy programs. The 
Subcommittee received testimony from Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX); 
Patricia McNeil, Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult 
Education, U.S. Department of Education; and from other experts 
in the field of adult education and literacy programs.
    The February 27, 1997 hearing in Washington, D.C., examined 
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Subcommittee received 
testimony from Judy Heumann, Assistant Secretary, Office of 
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department 
of Education; and from other individuals with expertise in the 
provision of vocational rehabilitation programs.
    The March 4, 1997 hearing in Washington, D.C., continued 
examination of how job training laws can be changed to 
encourage and support State and local innovation and reform. 
The Subcommittee received testimony from Raymond J. Uhalde, 
Acting Assistant Secretary of the Employment and Training 
Administration at the U.S. Department of Labor. The 
Subcommittee also received testimony from State and local 
program administrators and beneficiaries.
    On April 17, 1997, Representatives McKeon, Goodling, and 
Kildee introduced H.R. 1385, the Employment, Training, and 
Literacy Enhancement Act of 1997. The purpose of this 
legislation was to transform the current array of federal 
employment, training and adult education, literacy, and 
vocational rehabilitation programs from a collection of 
fragmented and duplicative categorical programs into high 
quality, coherent, and accountable State and local systems that 
are designed to provide high quality training for today and the 
21st century. The legislation was designed to empower 
individuals to choose occupations and training programs, based 
on accurate and up-to-date information, that will develop more 
fully their academic, occupational, and literacy skills, 
leading to productive employment and economic self-sufficiency, 
and reduction in welfare dependency. The bill also transferred 
resources and authority to States and local communities with 
the intent of increasing ease of access to high quality 
employment, training, literacy, and vocational rehabilitation 
programs. The bill significantly increased accountability in 
employment, training, literacy, and vocational rehabilitation 
programs.
    On April 24, 1997, the Subcommittee on Postsecondary 
Education, Training, and Life-Long Learning favorably reported 
H.R. 1385, with amendments, to the Full Committee on Education 
and the Workforce by a voice vote. On April 30, 1997, the Full 
Committee on Education and the Workforce favorably reported 
H.R. 1385 by a voice vote.
    H.R. 1385 was passed by the House of Representatives on May 
16, 1997 by a bipartisan vote of 343 to 60. The Senate passed 
comparable legislation on May 5, 1998, by a bipartisan vote of 
91 to 7.
    House and Senate Conferees began work to develop a 
conference agreement on H.R. 1385 immediately upon Senate 
passage of the legislation. The final agreement, the 
``Workforce Investment Act'' was passed by both the Senate on 
July 30, 1998, and by the House on July 31, 1998. The 
Conference Agreement on H.R. 1385 was signed into law on August 
7, 1998 (P.L. 105-220).
    The Workforce Investment Act (P.L. 105-220) sends authority 
and responsibility into the hands of actual individuals, 
providing them with choices in the selection of occupations, 
services, and service providers. The act consolidates more than 
60 federal training programs through the establishment of three 
block grants to the States for Adult Employment and Training, 
Disadvantaged Youth, and Adult Education and Literacy programs; 
and through amendments to the Vocational Rehabilitation Act.
    For adults, the Act establishes a single delivery system 
for adult employment and training that maximizes individual 
choice in the selection of occupations and training providers, 
while protecting funding for dislocated workers. It encourages 
an ``employment first'' approach to job training, and promotes 
individual responsibility and personal decision-making through 
the use of vouchers (individual training accounts) for the 
purchase of training services. This market-driven system 
eliminates the decades old tradition of bureaucrats making 
training decisions for adults. Customer choice makes the job 
training and employment system more responsive to the skill 
needs of individuals and the local labor market.
    P.L. 105-220 transfers funding and decision-making 
authority out of Washington to States and local communities for 
the design of local workforce investment programs. In 
additionto the transfer of authority, the agreement authorizes waivers 
to provide additional flexibility to governors and local communities, 
enabling them to implement innovative job training systems. The Act 
also cuts the size and authority of federal bureaucracy by 
consolidating programs, and eliminating numerous federal requirements 
including duplicative and costly planning, paperwork, and reporting 
requirements, resulting in a significant reduction in bureaucracy.
    The Workforce Investment Act provides a strong and active 
role for business by utilizing business-led local boards for 
the design and implementation of the training system. This will 
ensure that training is provided for the high-skill, high-wage 
jobs of the future. Training will be designed for occupations 
that are in demand. Under the new system, individuals will 
choose training providers based on performance information 
accessed through the one-stop delivery system. This will result 
in a market-driven system where the best providers of training 
will prevail. The bill also requires States and local programs 
to establish performance measures for use in determining 
program effectiveness.
    The new Act increases the focus of existing youth programs 
on longer-term academic and occupational training--on getting 
young people back to school, rather than stand alone, short-
term employment fixes. While allowing the continuation of good 
summer youth employment programs, the act requires that all 
employment experiences under these programs be tied to basic 
academic and occupational learning opportunities. Under these 
programs, priority for services is given to hard to serve 
disadvantaged youth, including a requirement that not less than 
30 percent of local youth program funds are spent on out-of-
school youth. The Act makes headway in reforming the Job Corps 
program by strengthening linkages among Job Corps centers and 
the communities in which they reside.
    P.L. 105-220 consolidates existing adult education and 
literacy programs into one flexible block grant to the States. 
States will use 82.5 percent of funds to be used to make 
competitive grants to local providers for adult education and 
literacy services, including workplace literacy services; 
English literacy programs; and for the first time, family 
literacy services. Local providers choose the types of services 
they wish to provide. These changes provide flexibility for 
States and communities to meet the literacy needs of 
individuals within the State. The Act requires States to adopt 
performance measures in order to ensure the improvement of 
adult education and literacy activities. The Act further 
promotes quality instructional programs by encouraging programs 
that use phonemic awareness, systematic phonics, fluency, and 
comprehension.
    Under the Workforce Investment Act, individuals with 
disabilities will finally have access to a comprehensive job 
training system that is capable of serving all who come to its 
doors. Unemployed individuals with disabilities will have 
broader job opportunities, allowing them to re-enter, or in 
some cases enter, the workforce for the first time. The Act 
provides a much-needed emphasis on self-employment, business 
ownership, and telecommuting opportunities, as well as 
improving linkages with employers and the State workforce 
investment system.

                       b. higher education reform

H.R. 6, the Higher Education Amendments of 1998

    During the 105th Congress, much of the Subcommittee on 
Postsecondary Education, Training and Life-Long Learning's work 
focused on a review of the programs found in the Higher 
Education Act that were scheduled to expire on September 30, 
1998. Prior to the end of the 104th Congress, organizations, 
associations, and governmental bodies were invited to submit to 
the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education, Training and Life-
Long Learning their legislative recommendations for the 
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. The Subcommittee 
received recommendations from more than 70 respondents.
            Hearings
    Between January 1997, and March 1998, the Subcommittee held 
22 hearings both in and outside of Washington to review and 
make determinations on revising programs found in the Higher 
Education Act. This review included, but was not limited to, 
grant programs, loan programs, institutional programs, 
integrity and accountability issues, and the overall costs of 
higher education. The Subcommittee gathered extensive 
information from those closest to the problems--local college 
presidents, students, and parents.
    In addition to reviewing the existing programs and what was 
working versus what was not working, the Subcommittee spent a 
great deal of time on the following issues.
            Saving student loans
    The interest rate formula scheduled to take effect on July 
1, 1998 would have resulted in the elimination of the private 
lending community from the student loan program. The private 
sector student loan program accounts for two-thirds of all 
federal student loans. After many meetings and much debate, a 
compromise was reached that afforded students an excellent 
interest rate while ensuring that all eligible students would 
continue to receive their loans.
            Making college affordable
    The Subcommittee also devoted a great deal of time studying 
the issue of college costs. In the hearings around the country, 
parents and students all expressed a growing concern over their 
ability to afford a college education. Because the 
Subcommittee's concern with this issue was so strong, it pushed 
for the creation of a commission to study college costs, which 
is described under the Cost of Higher Education Review Act. A 
number of the Commission's recommendations were included in 
H.R. 6.
            Encouraging students to work and save for college
    H.R. 6 strengthens the federal need analysis formula (which 
determines the amount of aid each student receives) to 
encourage students to work and save for their college 
education. Specifically, it allows the neediest dependent and 
independent students to earn and save more forcollege without 
having their financial aid award reduced. In addition, the amount 
students can earn and save without being penalized will be increased 
for inflation on a yearly basis.
            Sound management of our financial aid programs
    H.R. 6 includes the creation of a performance-based 
organization (PBO) within the Department of Education. The PBO 
will bring the best practices of the private financial sector 
to the Department of Education. The PBO and its chief operating 
officer will be charged with managing the student financial aid 
systems and reducing costs and improving efficiencies in the 
delivery system--ensuring students will receive their aid 
without the red tape. The PBO is described in greater detail 
under the 21st Century Student Financial Aid System Improvement 
Act.
            Improving teacher quality
    The Committee focused much attention on the need to 
encourage States to ensure that teachers are adequately 
prepared to enter the classroom. As a result of these efforts, 
H.R. 6 includes funds for States to improve teacher quality, 
increase the accountability of teacher preparation programs, 
and to recruit highly qualified students into the field of 
teaching.
    Specifically, H.R. 6 provides a single authorization for 
separate grant programs focusing on improving teacher quality 
and the recruitment of highly qualified teachers. Specifically, 
45% of the total amount will be for State Grants; 45% will be 
for Partnership Grants; and 10% will be for Recruitment Grants.
    Under the State Grants, Governors (or appropriate 
educational entities), will have the ability to use funds to 
improve the accountability of teacher preparation programs; 
reform teacher certification requirements; expand alternative 
routes to teacher certification; promote performance based-
compensation for teachers; streamline the process for removing 
incompetent or unqualified teachers; recruit highly qualified 
teachers; and implement efforts to end the practice of social 
promotion.
    In addition, grants will be provided to partnerships of 
institutions of higher education, schools of arts and sciences, 
high need local educational agencies, and others. Funds 
provided to these Partnerships are to be used for activities 
such as improving accountability of teacher preparation 
programs; providing clinical experience and professional 
development; and for the recruitment of highly qualified 
teachers.
    A separate grant provides both States and Partnerships the 
ability to compete for funds specifically targeted toward 
teacher recruitment.
    This Title also includes strong accountability for States 
and Partnerships receiving grants to ensure funds are being 
effectively used to improve student achievement and raise the 
level of teacher quality. In addition, each institution of 
higher education receiving federal assistance will be held 
accountable for disseminating information on the quality of 
their program based upon criteria such as the pass rates of 
their graduates on teacher assessments.
    Under the new law, States will also be required to identify 
poor performing teacher preparation programs. Those programs 
loosing State support will be prohibited from accepting or 
enrolling any student, who receives aid under Title IV of the 
Higher Education Act, in the institution's teacher preparation 
program.
            Making America's campuses safer
    In an effort to improve the effectiveness of current law 
provisions requiring the reporting of crimes on campus, the 
Committee modified existing law. It is the hope of the 
Committee that these modifications will provide students and 
others with the information they need to reduce campus crime 
and assist students in making decisions regarding their safety. 
New provisions extend the number of crimes to be reported and 
expand the list of individuals responsible for reporting crimes 
on campus. The legislation also modifies the definition of a 
campus for purposes of reporting crime statistics. The new law 
also requires institutions to make, keep and maintain daily 
logs of crime reported to police or security departments and to 
make such logs public, except where prohibited by law. Finally, 
it requires schools to forward information on campus crimes to 
the Department of Education on an annual basis and for the 
Secretary to make such statistics available to the public.
            Updating and improving the Education of the Deaf Act
    In addition, one hearing of the Subcommittee not related to 
the Higher Education Act focused on ways of improving upon the 
provisions of the Education of the Deaf Act. As a result of 
that hearing, amendments to the Education of the Deaf Act were 
included in the final version of H.R. 6.
    Given the enormous importance of education to the future 
success of all Americans, H.R. 6 reaffirms the long-standing 
commitment to programs targeted to people who are deaf or 
hearing impaired by extending the authorization for the 
Education of the Deaf Act of 1986. This legislation amends the 
Education of the Deaf Act by extending the authorization for 
Gallaudet University and the National Technical Institute for 
the Deaf. It also conforms the Act to be consistent with 
certain provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act Amendments of 1997, strengthens and clarifies 
audit provisions, increases flexibility and clarifies 
provisions with regard to the endowment programs, and 
authorizes a National Study on the Education of the Deaf.
            Improving retirement options for faculty
    The Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations held a 
hearing on May 22, 1997 on early retirement in higher education 
to examine the flexibility under federal law to allow 
institutions of higher education to develop early retirement 
incentives that save money and meet both institutional needs 
and the needs of tenured faculty members. Amendments to the Age 
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 were included in the 
final version of H.R. 6.
            Legislative action
    On January 7, 1997, Representatives McKeon (R-CA), Goodling 
(R-PA), Clay (D-MO), and Kildee (D-MI) introduced H.R. 6, the 
Higher Education Amendments of 1998 that simply extended the 
programs in the Higher Education Act. On the basis of the 
hearings, bills referred to the Subcommittee, the 
recommendations of the Administration and the recommendations 
of the higher education and lending communities, a draft 
legislative print was prepared. The Subcommittee on 
Postsecondary Education, Training and Life-Long Learning 
considered this print as an Amendment in the Nature of a 
Substitute to H.R. 6 in legislative session on March 4, 1998. 
H.R. 6 was ordered reported to the Full Committee on Education 
and the Workforce on March 4,1998 by voice vote without 
amendment.
    H.R. 6 was considered by the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce in legislative session on March 18 and 19, 1998, at 
which time 34 amendments were considered. On March 19, 1998, 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce, with a majority 
of the Committee present, reported H.R. 6, to the House with 
amendments, by a recorded vote of 38-3.
    On May 6, 1998, the House of Representatives, in a 
bipartisan vote of 414-4, overwhelmingly passed H.R. 6. The 
Senate passed the bill on July 9, 1998, by a vote of 96 to 1 
and requested a conference with the House. A final conference 
agreement was reached and a Conference Report was filed on 
September 25, 1998. On September 28, 1998, the House of 
Representatives agreed to the Conference Report by voice vote. 
The Senate agreed to the Conference Report on September 29, 
1998 by a vote of 96 to 0. On October 7, 1998, the President 
signed H.R. 6 into law. It is now P.L. 105-244.

H.R. 2400, the Transportation Equity Act For The 21st Century Emergency 
        Student Loan Interest Rate Adjustment

    One of the biggest challenges faced by the Members of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce during the 
authorization process for the Higher Education Act was finding 
a solution to the scheduled change in interest rates students 
would pay on new federal student loans.
            Immediate action necessary
    On July 1, 1998, the interest rates students pay on new 
federal student loans was scheduled to change from a variable 
rate equal to the 91-day Treasury Bill (T-Bill) plus 3.1 
percent to a variable rate equal to the 10-year Treasury Bond 
plus 1.0 percent. This was due to a provision contained in the 
1993 Budget Reconciliation Act that would have nationalized the 
entire student loan program. This change would have cut both 
lender yields and student interest rates by approximately 1 
percent. However, lenders participating in the FFEL program 
expressed serious concerns over their ability to continue to 
make loans should this change take effect claiming student 
loans would no longer be profitable. If the lenders left the 
FFEL program, two-thirds of our nation's students would not be 
able to access the capital necessary to pursue a higher 
education.
            Consensus solution
    After working extensively with all parties involved the 
Committee was able to devise a bipartisan solution. Under this 
solution interest rates for students dropped to the equivalent 
of the 91-day T-bill, plus 2.3 percent during repayment and the 
equivalent of the 91-day T-bill, plus 1.7 percent while in-
school. At the same time, the amount that the lenders are paid 
is a rate equal to the 91-day T-bill, plus 2.2 percent during 
the in-school and grace periods, and equal to the 91-day T-
bill, plus 2.8 percent during repayment. The Subcommittee on 
Postsecondary Education, Training, and Life-Long Learning also 
held a hearing on the Issues in the Student Loan Programs 
Relating to the Scheduled July 1, 1998 Interest Rate Change, on 
March 5, 1998.
            Legislative action
    A long-term solution was included in H.R. 6, the Higher 
Education Amendments of 1998, which favorably passed the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce on March 19, 1998, by 
a recorded vote of 38-3. H.R. 6 passed the House of 
Representatives on May 6, 1998, by a bipartisan vote of 414-4. 
Unfortunately, the Senate failed to take action on its higher 
education bill before the May recess. The Department of 
Education was required to announce interest rates on June 1, 
1998. Therefore, a temporary interest rate solution, which 
began on July 1, 1998 and ended on September 30, 1998, was 
placed in H.R. 2400, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century. H.R. 2400 was signed into law by the President on June 
9, 1998. It is now P.L. 105-178.

H.R. 2535, the Emergency Student Loan Consolidation Act of 1997

    On August 27, 1997, the Department of Education stopped 
processing applications for Federal Direct Consolidation Loans 
due to computer system problems. More than 84,000 applications 
were backlogged, and new applications were not being accepted. 
Students with direct loans who wished to obtain a consolidation 
loan had no option but to wait until the Department corrected 
the problems since the Higher Education Act did not allow 
students to consolidate their direct loans into a Federal 
Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program consolidation loan.
            Immediate action necessary
    Committee Members were extremely disappointed that the 
Department suspended the Direct Loan Consolidation Program. 
Without consolidation, these students incurred not only 
additional interest costs but also had considerable difficulty 
in meeting their loan payments. Some students were unable to 
secure other credit such as a mortgage, and many may have 
defaulted on their student loans.
    Committee Members were especially concerned by the comments 
of an individual student affected by the direct loan 
consolidation shutdown. At a hearing on September 18, 1997, 
before the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education, Training 
and Life-Long Learning, a former student said: ``The staff at 
the (direct loan) consolidation center has alternatively 
ignored us, given us incorrect information, or even lied to us. 
One of the worst things that happened wasthat we were almost 
unable to close on our home,'' due to the loan consolidation problem at 
the Department. A process that was supposed to have taken her eight to 
twelve weeks took her and her husband more than eight months.
    The fact that students found themselves in this 
consolidation processing dilemma was in stark contrast to the 
Department's perception of itself as the ``Microsoft'' and 
``Citibank'' of higher education as senior members of the 
Department of Education were quoted as saying. In a hearing on 
July 29, 1997, before the Subcommittee on Postsecondary 
Education, Training, and Life-Long Learning, David Longanecker, 
the Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education stated, 
``the Direct Loan Program provides a simpler, more automated, 
and more accountable system to borrowers . . . students have 
witnessed the development of a level of customer service not 
previously experienced in financial aid delivery.''
    Perhaps that was the view from Washington, D.C. The view 
from the frontlines seemed much different. At least one 
student, Ms. Angela Jamison, who testified on September 18, 
1997, described the Department's customer service as ``beset by 
chronic mistakes, which range from incompetence to 
malfeasance.''
            Necessary solution
    The Emergency Student Loan Consolidation Act opened the 
loan market and allowed the private sector to consolidate loans 
for direct loan borrowers. This alleviated the backlog and 
brought much needed competition to the consolidation loan 
market.
    H.R. 2535 allowed borrowers to consolidate direct student 
loans into FFEL consolidation loans. The interest rate for all 
new consolidation loans was set at the equivalent of the 91-day 
Treasury Bill rate plus 3.1 percent (the same as in the Direct 
Loan Program). In addition, borrowers who consolidated 
subsidized loans, whether in the Direct Loan Program or the 
FFEL Program, did not lose their deferment benefits. During 
periods of deferment, the Secretary was required to pay the 
interest on the loans which were eligible for an interest 
subsidy prior to the consolidation and the borrower was only 
responsible for the interest on the loans included in the 
consolidation loan which were not eligible for an interest 
subsidy under Section 428 or Section 455 of the Higher 
Education Act. These provisions ensured that borrowers did not 
lose benefits due to the Department's mismanagement of the 
consolidation process.
            Legislative action
    On September 18, 1997, the Subcommittee on Postsecondary 
Education, Training and Life-Long Learning held a hearing on 
the Shutdown of the Consolidation Loan Process in the William 
D. Ford Direct Student Loan Program. On September 24, 1997, 
Subcommittee Chairman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon (R-CA) 
introduced H.R. 2535, the Emergency Student Loan Consolidation 
Act of 1997. On October 1, 1997, the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce considered H.R. 2535 and favorably reported the 
bill by a recorded vote of 43-0. On October 21, 1997, the House 
of Representatives passed H.R. 2535 under Suspension of the 
Rules, by voice vote. Due to the urgency of getting this 
legislation enacted, H.R. 2535 became part of the Fiscal Year 
1998 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education 
Appropriations Bill (H.R. 2264), which was signed into law by 
the President on November 13, 1997. It is now P.L. 105-78.

H.R. 1511, the Cost of Higher Education Review Act

    College affordability has been a central part of the 
discussions surrounding the Subcommittee's review of the grant 
and loan programs found in the Higher Education Act. As Members 
have talked to individuals across the country concerning the 
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, the consistent 
question being asked by students and parents is ``why is 
college so expensive and why are college prices rising so 
quickly?''
    Members of the Subcommittee recognize that in today's 
technology and information based economy, getting a high 
quality postsecondary education is more important than ever. 
For many Americans, it is the key to the American dream. 
Historically, higher education prices have increased at roughly 
the rate of inflation. However, since the early 1980's, college 
tuition has spiraled at a rate of two-to-three times that of 
inflation every year. According to a report released by the 
General Accounting Office (GAO), between 1980-1981 and 1994-
1995, tuition at 4-year public colleges and universities 
increased 234 percent, while median household income rose 82 
percent, and the consumer price index rose only 74 percent.
    That is not to say that there are not affordable schools. 
There are still some affordable schools and there are college 
presidents who are committed to keeping costs low. There are 
schools that are trying very innovative things to reduce 
tuition prices, and it is important that some of these 
practices serve as models for similar types of institutions.
            Legislative action
    On Wednesday, April 23, 1997, the Subcommittee on 
Postsecondary Education, Training and Life-Long learning held a 
hearing on the Rising Price of a College Education in order to 
better understand what is driving college cost increases and 
what can be done to reduce the price of a postsecondary 
education.
    On Thursday, May 1, 1997, Representatives McKeon and 
Goodling introduced H.R. 1511, The Cost of Higher Education 
Review Act of 1997. On Wednesday, May 7, 1997, the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce assembled to consider H.R. 1511. 
The Committee adopted the bill without amendment by a voice 
vote. This legislation was enacted on June 12, 1997 (P.L. 105-
18) and established the National Commission on the Cost of 
Higher Education.
            Commission activities
    The Commission was composed of 11 Members appointed in a 
bipartisan fashion. The Commission members were selected for 
their expertise in higher education finance, federal financial 
aid programs, education economics research, and public or 
private higher education administration. They were assigned the 
task of studying the reasons for the rapid tuitionincreases 
that have occurred over the last several years and making specific 
recommendations as to how these increases can be brought under control.
    On January 21, 1998, the Commission issued its final 
report, and on February 10, 1998, the Commission went out of 
existence.
            Commission recommendations implemented
    On March 19, 1998, Representative McKeon (R-CA) and 
Representative Castle (R-DE) offered an amendment to H.R. 6 
that was accepted by the Committee on a voice vote to include a 
number of the Commission's recommendations in the Higher 
Education Amendments of 1998.
    Most important for students and parents will be the 
increased availability of information with respect to college 
costs and prices that the Secretary of Education will make 
available on a yearly basis. In addition, that legislation 
contains a clarification to the Age Discrimination in 
Employment Act authored by Representative Fawell that will 
allow colleges and universities to offer tenured faculty early 
retirement bonuses. This will give tenured faculty new 
retirement benefits while allowing institutions more 
flexibility to hire instructors with the most up to date 
knowledge and reducing a costly regulatory burden on schools. 
It is the intent of the Committee that any cost savings to 
institutions be passed directly on to students.

H.R. 2015, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997

            Student loan provisions
    On July 30, 1997, the House passed the conference report on 
the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. This landmark legislation 
provided the framework to produce the first balanced federal 
budget in a generation. Members of the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce believe there is nothing more important to 
the future of this country than all Americans having the 
opportunity for high quality education and training that will 
provide them with the skills needed to compete in the 
Information Age economy. The Committee also recognizes the 
importance of a balanced budget in achieving this goal. 
Balancing the budget and reducing our $5 trillion national debt 
will lower interest rates, create new jobs and produce a more 
stable future for our children. Committee Members are proud to 
have contributed to this process by approving legislation which 
protected student loans, improved the efficiency of our student 
loan programs, and provided $1.763 billion in savings toward a 
balanced federal budget.
            Increasing the efficiency of our student loan programs
    The Budget Agreement included three areas of savings from 
the student loan programs. The first area is the return of 
reserve funds currently held by guaranty agencies. These funds 
have been accumulating over the years as loan volume has 
increased, defaults have decreased and guaranty agencies have 
become more efficient in their operations. Under the Higher 
Education Act, reserve funds are the property of the federal 
government and held by the guaranty agencies in a fiduciary 
capacity. These funds are used by guaranty agencies for payment 
of insurance claims to lenders, collection activities, default 
prevention activities and other operating expenses.
    As of September 30, 1996, the funds held by guaranty 
agencies in reserve accounts totaled $2,004,857,000. The Budget 
Agreement returns $1 billion of these funds to the Treasury in 
fiscal year 2002. In order to ensure that these funds will be 
available for return to the Treasury in 2002, the Committee 
required each guaranty agency to make yearly transfers of funds 
to restricted accounts approved by the Secretary. Because the 
Committee was concerned with the continued viability of the 
Federal Family Education Loan Program, the Committee required 
guaranty agencies with substantial reserve funds to return a 
larger share of funds than would be required using a straight 
proportional share.
    The Committee bill also saved $603 million over five years 
by reducing the mandatory administrative funds authorized in 
Section 458 of Part D of the Higher Education Act. These funds 
pay a majority of the expenses of the Federal Direct Student 
Loan Program and a portion of the administrative expenses of 
the Federal Family Education Loan Program.
    The final provision of this bill provides for the 
elimination of a $10 application processing fee to institutions 
which participate in the Direct Student Loan Program. This 
provision saves $160 million over five years. Payment of this 
fee had previously been prohibited through the appropriations 
process.
            Legislative action
    On June 12, 1997, the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce favorably reported its recommendations to the House 
Budget Committee by a recorded vote of 24-20. On July 30, 1997, 
the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2015, the Balanced 
Budget Act of 1997 (which contained these savings provisions), 
by a recorded vote of 346-85. H.R. 2015 was signed into law by 
the President on August 5, 1997. It is now P.L. 105-33.

H.R. 4259, the Haskell Indian Nations University and Southwestern 
        Indian Polytechnic Institute Administrative Systems Act of 1998

    Haskell Indian Nations University (HINU), and Southwestern 
Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI) are the only federally 
owned Indian colleges in the country. Both are under the 
jurisdiction of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Both have 
been undergoing change in order to improve educational services 
for Native Americans. For example, HINU has recently converted 
from a junior college to a four-year institution. Due to their 
growth, the two schools have found it difficult to continue to 
improve within the confines of the civil service laws. For 
example, it has proven difficult to recruit qualified 
professors due to the rigidity of civil service classifications 
and lack of portability of federal retirement benefits.
            Reducing burdensome regulations
    H.R. 4259 will allow these two schools to participate in a 
five-year demonstration project. The demonstration project will 
exempt them from the majority of civil service laws and allow 
them to develop alternative personnel systems that more closely 
resemble those found at traditional colleges and universities. 
H.R. 4259 will allow current employees with at least one year 
of government service to choose to keep their federal 
retirement, health, and life insurance benefits. Both 
institutions are supportive of this legislation.
            Legislative action
    On July 16, 1998, Representative Snowbarger (R-KS) 
introduced H.R. 4259, which would waive civil service personnel 
requirements for two Indian colleges that are controlled by the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). H.R. 4259 was considered by the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight in legislative 
session on July 23, 1998, and ordered reported to the House 
without amendment on a vote of 20-16. On September 22, 1998, 
Chairman Goodling (R-PA) notified the Speaker of the House that 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce had no objection 
to House consideration of H.R. 4259, but that the Committee had 
an interest in retaining its jurisdictional prerogatives over 
future legislation effecting these institutions.
    On October 6, 1998, the House of Representatives passed 
H.R. 4259 on a voice vote. The Senate passed identical 
legislation by unanimous consent on October 14, 1998. On 
October 31, 1998, the President signed H.R. 4259 into law. It 
is now P.L. 105-337.

                 II. Hearings Held by The Subcommittee

105th Congress, First Session

    January 30, 1997--H.R. 6, the Higher Education Amendments 
of 1998.
    February 11, 1997--Hearing on Reform of the Major Federal 
Job Training Programs.
    February 25, 1997--Hearing on the Adult Education Act.
    February 27, 1997--Hearing on The Rehabilitation Act of 
1973.
    March 4, 1997--Hearing on Reform of the Major Federal Job 
Training Programs.
    March 25, 1997--H.R. 6, the Higher Education Amendments of 
1998.
    April 1, 1997--H.R. 6, the Higher Education Amendments of 
1998.
    April 3, 1997--H.R. 6, the Higher Education Amendments of 
1998.
    April 21, 1997--H.R. 6, the Higher Education Amendments of 
1998.
    April 21, 1997--H.R. 6, the Higher Education Amendments of 
1998.
    April 22, 1997--H.R. 6, the Higher Education Amendments of 
1998.
    April 23, 1997--Hearing on the Rising Price of a College 
Education.
    May 2, 1997--H.R. 6, the Higher Education Amendments of 
1998.
    May 5, 1997--H.R. 6, the Higher Education Amendments of 
1998.
    May 19, 1997--H.R. 6, the Higher Education Amendments Act 
of 1998.
    June 5, 1997--H.R. 6, the Higher Education Amendments Act 
of 1998; Student Financial Aid--the Foundation Programs; Pell 
Grants and Campus Based Aid.
    June 17, 1997--H.R. 6, the Higher Education Amendments of 
1998; TRIO, International Education, Graduate Education, Indian 
Education and HEP/CAMP.
    June 19, 1997--H.R. 6, the Higher Education Amendments of 
1998.
    June 26, 1997--H.R. 6, the Higher Education Amendments of 
1998, Title III and Urban and Community Service Programs.
    July 15, 1997--Hearing on the Education and the Deaf Act 
and Title V of the Higher Education Act.
    July 17, 1997--H.R. 6, the Higher Education Amendments of 
1998: Campus Crime and Regulatory Reform.
    July 22, 1997--H.R. 6, the Higher Education Amendments of 
1998, Student Loan Programs.
    July 29, 1997--H.R. 6, the Higher Education Amendments of 
1998, System Modernization Efforts at the Department of 
Education and Accreditation.
    September 18, 1997--Hearing on the Shutdown of the 
Consolidation Loan Program in the William D. Ford Direct 
Student Loan Program.

105th Congress, 2nd Session

    March 5, 1998--Hearing on Issues in the Student Loan 
Programs Relating to the Scheduled July, 1 1998 Interest Rate 
Change.

                 III. Markups Held by the Subcommittee

105th Congress, First Session

    April 24, 1997--H.R. 1385, Employment, Training, and 
Literacy Enhancement Act of 1997.

105th Congress, Second Session

    March 4, 1998--H.R. 6, Higher Education Amendments of 1998.

                      IV. Subcommittee Statistics

Total Number of Bills and Resolutions Referred to Subcommittee....   105
Total Number of Hearings..........................................    25
    Field.........................................................    10
    Joint with Other Committees-..................................     0
Total Number of Subcommittee Markup Sessions -....................     2
Total Number of Bills Reported From Subcommittee -................     2

          SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, YOUTH AND FAMILIES

                        I. Summary of Activities

         a. empowering parents and reforming america's schools

H.R. 2616, the Charter School Expansion Act of 1998

    Charter schools are public schools established under State 
law, and given varying degrees of autonomy from State and local 
rules and regulations. In exchange for their autonomy, charter 
schools are held accountable for meeting the terms of their 
charters, including achievement of academic outcomes of the 
students they serve. Charter schools are free from much of the 
red tape that governs traditional public schools.
    During the 105th Congress, the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce held five hearings on charter schools. The 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations conducted field 
hearings in California and Arizona. The Subcommittee on Early 
Childhood, Youth and Families continued the discussion on 
charter schools by holding three hearings in Washington D.C. on 
the issue. The respective dates of the five hearings in 1997 
were January 30, January 31, April 9, June 26, and September 
16. Testimony provided by witnesses confirmed that charter 
schools are having a positive impact on student performance and 
parental satisfaction. Charter schools now represent an 
integral component of school reform.
    In response to the increasing popularity of charter schools 
and a growing interest to increase the number of charter 
schools across the nation, Representative Frank Riggs (R-CA), 
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and 
Families, introduced H.R. 2616, the Charter Schools Amendments 
Act of 1997, on October 6, 1997. The Committee considered and 
ordered reported H.R. 2616, as amended, on October 9, 1997, by 
a vote of 24-8. The House passed H.R. 2616 on November 7, 1997, 
by a vote of 367-57. The bill was referred to the Senate 
Committee on Labor and Human Resources on November 13, 1997. 
The Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources discharged 
the bill by Unanimous Consent on October 8, 1998, and the 
Senate passed H.R. 2616 with an amendment, which included 
changing the title of the Act to ``The Charter School Expansion 
Act of 1998'', by Unanimous Consent, on October 8, 1998. The 
bill as amended by the Senate, was passed by the House of 
Representatives on October 10, 1998 by a vote of 369-50. It was 
signed into law by the President on October 22, 1998, and 
became P.L. 105-278.
    The Charter School Expansion Act of 1998 authorizes $100 
million for charter schools and ensures that at least 90% of 
federal charter school money goes directly down to States and 
local charter schools. The Act also directs the Secretary of 
Education to target charter school money to those States where 
there is an increase in the number of high quality charter 
schools. High quality charter schools are those charter schools 
that possess a high degree of autonomy; charter schools that 
meet or exceed academic performance requirements established by 
the State; and charter schools that show progress in improving 
student performance.

Parental Choice and H.R 2746, Helping Empower Low-Income Parents (HELP) 
        Scholarships Amendments of 1997

    The Committee on Education and the Workforce, through its 
Subcommittees on Early Childhood, Youth and Families and 
Oversight and Investigations, held several hearings on parental 
choice in education.
    On September 9, 1997, the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 
Youth and Families held a hearing on parental choice to review 
various House and Senate proposals promoting parental choice in 
education.
    On September 12, 1997, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations held a field hearing ``Education at a 
Crossroads: What Works? What's Wasted?'' on parental choice in 
Cleveland, Ohio. The hearing focused upon Cleveland's taxpayer-
funded scholarship program to benefit low-income families. 
Under the pilot program, low-income families in Cleveland are 
provided government-funded scholarships to attend the public or 
private schools of their choice.
    On September 30, 1997, the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 
Youth and Families held a hearing on parental choice that 
considered: (1) ongoing academic research on parental choice 
experiments in Milwaukee and Cleveland; (2) the involvement of 
private foundations in supporting parental choice in education; 
and (3) the benefits of school choice for low-income students.
    On March 12, 1998, the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 
Youth and Families held a hearing on the topic of public and 
private school choice in the District of Columbia. The hearing 
focused upon parental support of school choice in the District 
and the utilization of charter schools as a means of providing 
more education choices to District of Columbia families.
    On October 28, 1997, Representative Frank Riggs (R-CA) and 
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and 
Families introduced H.R. 2746, the HELP Scholarships bill. The 
legislation would empower low-income parents in poor areas of 
the country to send their children to the best public or 
private schools with taxpayer-funded scholarships. 
Specifically, H.R. 2746 would:
           Permit state educational agencies and local 
        educational agencies to use their Title VI education 
        block grant funds, if they choose, for public and 
        private school choice. The prerequisite for using any 
        Title VI funds for a parental choice program would be 
        the enactment of state parental choice legislation.
           Set broad guidelines for school choice 
        programs. Any State educational agency or local 
        educational agency that wishes to use such funds in a 
        public and private parental choice program, shall 
        ensure that such program, through their state enabling 
        legislation, meets the following criteria:
                  1. The parental choice program must be in 
                poor communities.
                  2. The parental choice program would be 
                means-tested (up to 185% of poverty) so that 
                only parents with the lowest incomes would be 
                eligible to receive scholarships for their 
                children.
                  3. Maximum amount of the scholarship could be 
                no more than the per pupil expenditure in that 
                locality. Minimum amount of the scholarship is 
                no less than 60% of the per pupil expenditure 
                or the cost of the private tuition, whichever 
                is less.
           Allow State, local and/or private funds to 
        supplement the federal funding provided for choice 
        under Title VI.
           Include protections for private school 
        programs of instruction and curricula.
           Provide for annual evaluations/studies of 
        academic achievement and parental satisfaction with 
        school choice.
    On November 4, 1997, H.R. 2746 was considered by the House 
and was defeated on the House Floor by a vote of 191-228.
    Additionally, on June 5, 1997, Majority Leader Dick Armey 
(R-TX) introduced H.R. 1797, the District of Columbia Student 
Opportunity Scholarship Act of 1997. This legislation provided 
scholarships to low income District of Columbia families to 
enable them to send their children to the public or private 
schools of their choice. A companion measure, S. 1502 was 
introduced in the Senate on November 9, 1997, by Sen. Dan Coats 
(R-IN). This legislation passed the Senate by voice vote on 
November 9, 1997, and passed the House on April 30, 1998 by a 
vote of 214-206. The bill was vetoed by the President on May 
20, 1998.

H.R. 3892, the English Language Fluency Act

    It was the view of the Committee that the current Bilingual 
Education Act was not effective in assisting children to learn 
the English language and to remain in school until graduation. 
H.R. 3892, introduced by Rep. Frank Riggs (R-CA), Chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families, on May 
19, 1998, was designed to help K-12 students with limited 
English skills master English and develop high levels of 
academic attainment. It provided States with a flexible funding 
stream to use to support programs in local schools. 
Participating schools would be able to choose which type of 
instructional programs they would use, as long as it was 
consistent with State law. The bill also required parents to 
sign a consent form before their child is placed in a program 
for English language learners and gave parents the option of 
choosing the type of language instruction for their children if 
schools offer more than one method of instruction. These two 
key measures-flexibility for States and local communities and 
parental choice-were intended to remake bilingual education 
programs so they work for children.
    Prior to consideration of H.R. 3892, the English Language 
Fluency Act, the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and 
Families held two hearings on reforming Bilingual Education on 
February 18, 1998, and April 30, 1998. The first hearing was 
held in San Diego, California. The second hearing was held in 
Washington, D.C.
    On May 21, 1998, the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth 
and Families favorably reported the bill to the full Committee 
on Education and the Workforce by a vote of 10-5. On June 4, 
1998, the Committee on Education and the Workforce favorably 
reported H.R. 3892, the English Language Fluency Act, by a vote 
of 22-17. The bill passed the House by a vote of 221 to 189 on 
September 10, 1998. No action was taken in the Senate.
    The FY 1999 appropriations bill for the Departments of 
Labor and Health and Human Services and Education. H.R. 4274, 
as reported by the Committee on July 20, 1998, included several 
amendments to the current Bilingual Education Act. These 
modifications: (1) removed the limit on spending more than 25 
percent of appropriated funds on alternative methods of 
teaching English to limited English proficient children; (2) 
limited participation of students in programs funded under this 
Act to 2 years, but allowed for two one-year waivers; and (3) 
placed a priority on funding approaches that show success in 
moving pupils with limited English language skills into regular 
English language instruction within 2 years of being served. 
None of these changes was included in the Omnibus spending 
measure enacted prior to the adjournment of the 105th Congress.

                   b. education of disabled children

H.R. 5, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997

    The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments 
of 1997, H.R. 5 was introduced on January 7, 1997 by Chairman 
Bill Goodling (R-PA). The Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 
Youth and Families held two hearings to consider the review and 
authorization of the Act on February 4 and 6, 1997. The 
Committee on Education and the Workforce reported the bill, 
with amendments on May 7, 1997. H.R. 5, as amended was ordered 
reported by a voice vote. On May 13, the House of 
Representatives considered and passed H.R. 5 (H. Rept. 105-95) 
by a vote of 420-3. The President signed the bill into law on 
June 4, 1997 (P.L. 105-17).
    The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments 
of 1997, improves the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act (IDEA) through provisions that:
          (1) place the emphasis on what is best educationally 
        for children with disabilities rather than on paperwork 
        for paperwork's sake;
          (2) give professionals, especially teachers, more 
        influence and flexibility in the delivery of education 
        to children with disabilities, and give school 
        administrators and policymakers lower costs;
          (3) enhance the input of parents of children with 
        disabilities in the decision making that affects their 
        child's education;
          (4) make schools safer and describe how school 
        officials may discipline children with disabilities; 
        and
          (5) consolidate and target discretionary programs to 
        strengthen the capacity of America's schools to 
        effectively serve children, including infants and 
        toddlers, with disabilities.
    The Act also makes it easier to understand and use IDEA by 
simplifying its structure andthe organization of provisions. 
Other improvements in the legislation include alphabetized definitions; 
revised formula when appropriations reach a trigger level; consolidated 
State educational agency eligibility requirements; consolidated local 
educational agency (LEA) eligibility requirements; consolidated 
evaluation, reevaluation, individualized education program, and 
placement provisions; and consolidated procedural safeguards 
requirements. Part H, the early intervention program for infants and 
toddlers, becomes part C. Other discretionary programs are condensed 
and consolidated into part D, with two authorized subparts including a 
new State Improvement program.
    The Act includes a provision to allow greater funding 
flexibility for the LEAs. When appropriations for Part B exceed 
$4.1 billion, LEAs may treat as local funds up to 20% of the 
difference between the federal IDEA funds received and those 
funds received the prior year. As appropriations for IDEA Part 
B are $4.3 billion for FY 1999, this trigger for a new formula 
will become effective and LEAs effectively can reduce their 
local spending by up to 20% for the coming year.
    The Act addresses the Department's use of policy letters 
for guidance at the national level. The provision requires the 
Secretary to follow the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 when 
establishing a rule for compliance. When the Secretary issues a 
response to a request for policy clarification that raises 
issues of general interest and applicability or national 
significance, the Secretary shall widely disseminate the 
response to SEAs, LEAs, parent and advocacy organizations, and 
other interested parties. The response must include an 
explanation that it is provided as informal guidance and is not 
legally binding. Within a year after the response, the 
Secretary must issue written guidance on the issue through such 
means as policy memorandum, notice of interpretation, or notice 
of proposed rulemaking

H.R. 3254, IDEA Technical Amendments Act of 1998

    On February 24, 1998, Representative Frank Riggs introduced 
H.R. 3254, the IDEA Technical Amendments Act of 1998, which was 
referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce. On 
May 16, 1998, the Committee referred the bill to the 
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth, and Families. On May 
21, 1998, the Subcommittee reported the bill to the Full 
Committee by voice vote. The Full Committee ordered reported 
the bill, as amended, by a vote of 23-18 on June 4, 1998. On 
July 24, 1998, the Committee report was filed (H. Rept. 105-
649). No further action was taken on the bill as a stand-alone 
bill. H.R. 3254 was attached to H.R. 4274, the Labor-HHS-
Education Appropriations bill; however, no final action was 
taken on that bill, and H.R. 3254 was not included in the 
Omnibus Appropriations bill.
    H.R. 3254 would modify the enforcement provisions in 
Section 616 of the individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
to clarify that if a State chooses to deny services to adult 
prisoners (ages 18-21), the only enforcement remedy that can be 
taken for this failure to provide IDEA services to these 
individuals is to withhold federal IDEA funds based on the 
number of such individuals in the State's eligible IDEA 
population. Once the Secretary withholds these funds, no 
further corrective action against the State can be taken in 
that fiscal year for not providing services to these 
individuals. The Department cannot withhold or delay the entire 
amount of IDEA funding for the State for all other children in 
special education.

                       c. control juvenile crime

H.R. 1818, the Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency Prevention Act of 
        1997

    Authorization for the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention Act expired in 1996 during the 104th Congress. The 
Committee felt that the current program was in need of major 
reforms to assist States and local communities address problems 
related to juvenile crime in today's society. Key provisions in 
H.R. 1818 provided States and local communities with greater 
flexibility in how they address juvenile crime under the 
existing formula grant program and combined current 
discretionary programs into a block grant to the States. In 
addition, H.R. 1818 authorized funding for the Runaway and 
Homeless Youth Act and the National Center for Missing and 
Exploited Children. The current law configuration of three 
separate funding streams for runaway and homeless youth 
programs has proven to be piecemeal, unnecessary and 
duplicative. H.R. 1818 significantly improved the operation and 
effectiveness of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act by 
streamlining the Act, removing duplicative provisions and 
improving the organization of the Act. As a result, H.R. 1818 
granted greater flexibility to community programs to develop 
and implement programs that best meet the needs of the youth 
they serve.
    In the 104th Congress, the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 
Youth and Families held four hearings to review the Juvenile 
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. Four additional 
hearings were held during the 105th Congress. Five of the 
hearings were held in Washington, D.C. and three in California 
in the cities of San Diego, Windsor, and El Monte. Witnesses 
represented individuals involved in all areas of the juvenile 
justice system, including judges, probation officers, law 
enforcement officers, district attorneys and those involved in 
prevention activities. Testimony was also received regarding 
the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program.
    On June 12, 1997, the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 
Youth and Families reported H.R. 1818, as amended by voice 
vote. On June 18, 1997, the Full Committee on Education and the 
Workforce favorably reported H.R. 1818 by voice vote.
    The House passed H.R. 1818 (as amended) on July 15, 1997, 
under suspension of the rules, by a vote of 413-14. The Senate 
passed H.R. 2073, amending the Missing Children's Assistance 
Act and the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, on June 28, 1998. 
The House passed S. 2073 (as amended) on September 15, 1998, by 
a vote of 280-126. The amendment struck the provisions of S. 
2073 and replaced them with the provisions of H.R. 1818 and 
H.R. 3, a Judiciary Committee bill to address juvenile crime. 
Prior to sending this legislation back to the Senate for 
further consideration, the House appointed conferees and 
requested a House/Senate conference. However, no agreement was 
reached by the end of the 105th Congress.

               d. technical training for america's youth

H.R. 1853, the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology 
        Education Amendments of 1998

    The Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families 
held three hearings on the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and 
Applied Technology Education Act. The hearings were held on May 
20, May 22, and June 5, 1997.
    On June 10, 1997, Representative Frank Riggs (R-CA), 
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and 
Families introduced H.R. 1853, the Carl D. Perkins Vocational-
Technical Education Act Amendments of 1997. On June 12, 1997, 
the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families 
favorably reported the bill with amendments to the Full 
Committee on Education and the Workforce by a voice vote. On 
June 25, 1997, the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
assembled to consider H.R. 1853, the Carl D. Perkins 
Vocational-Technical Education Act Amendments of 1997. H.R. 
1853, as amended, was favorably reported by the Education and 
the Workforce Committee by a vote of 20-18.
    The House passed the bill, as amended, on July 22, 1997 by 
a vote of 414-12.
    On October 7, 1998, the Conference between the House of 
Representatives and the Senate occurred. On October 8, 1998, 
Conference Report 105-800, for the Carl D. Perkins Vocational 
and Applied Technology Education Amendments of 1998, was filed 
in the House. On October 9, 1998, the House agreed to the 
Conference Report by voice vote. On October 20, 1998, the 
Conference Report was presented to the President. On October 
31, 1998, the President signed this legislation into law. It is 
P.L. 105-332.
    The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology 
Education Amendments of 1998 achieved four goals outlined by 
the Committee: strengthened the role of academics in vocational 
education programs; broadened opportunities for vocational 
education students; sent more of the federal funds to the local 
level; and increased State and local flexibility. Along with 
structural improvements and the elimination of several 
historically unfunded programs, the Conference Report made 
major changes in four areas:
          (1) various formula provisions were changed to more 
        directly reflect the population being served;
          (2) accountability provisions were strengthened to 
        challenge States and LEAs to help students raise both 
        their academic and vocational skill abilities; and
          (3) services for women and girls were integrated into 
        the vocational education system by eliminating a 
        separate funding set-aside and State Coordinator for 
        this purpose.
          (4) the focus on services for special populations was 
        decreased and the emphasis on services for all students 
        was increased, with the goal of creating quality 
        programs for all students, rather than a ``dumping 
        ground'' for some students.

                           e. child nutrition

H.R. 3874, the William F. Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act 
        of 1998

    During the 105th Congress, four of the major child 
nutrition programs were scheduled to expire: the Special 
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children 
(WIC), the Summer Food Service Program, State Administrative 
Expenses and the Commodities Distribution program. Prior to 
extending the authorization for these programs, the Committee 
held several hearings on all major child nutrition programs, 
including the School Lunch and Breakfast programs, in order to 
determine if any changes were required to insure they were 
working effectively and serving the nutritional needs of 
participants.
    The Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families 
held two hearings in Washington, D.C., on child nutrition: 
March 10, 1998, and March 17, 1998. The March 10 hearing 
focused on child nutrition programs in general, while the March 
17 hearing focused on the Special Supplemental Nutrition 
Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).
    On May 14, 1998, Congressman Mike Castle (R-DE) introduced 
H.R. 3874, the WIC Reauthorization Amendments of 1998. This 
measure was favorably reported to the Full Committee on 
Education and the Workforce by the Subcommittee on Early 
Childhood, Youth and Families on May 21, 1998. On June 4, 1998, 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce reported H.R. 3874 
by a vote of 36-1. The report was filed on July 20, 1998.
    On July 20, 1998, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 
3874 by a vote of 383-1. The Senate passed their bill on 
September 17, 1998, by Unanimous Consent. Conference meetings 
were held, during which the bill was named the William F. 
Goodling Child Nutrition Amendments of 1998. The conference 
agreement passed the Senate on October 7, 1998 and the House on 
October 9, 1998. The President signed this legislation into law 
on October 31, 1998 and it is P.L. 105-336.
    The final version of this bipartisan legislation made 
several key improvements to child nutrition programs. One of 
the most important modifications was the expansion of current 
law provisions to provide snacks to schoolchildren 
participating in school or community-based afterschool programs 
with an educational or enrichment purpose. The Committee felt 
it was important to encourage afterschool programs in order to 
address problems related to teenage pregnancy, drug use and 
juvenile crime. Another significant provision amended the 
Summer Food Service Program to encourage greater participation 
by private, nonprofit organizations. Since it is often 
difficult to find sponsors in rural areas, the Committee felt 
it was important to encourage additional providers in such 
areas by removing current restrictions on private, nonprofit 
program sponsors. Other key provisions address fraud and abuse 
in both the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 
Infants and Children (WIC) and the Child and Adult Care Food 
Program. Both programs have come under close scrutiny over the 
past few years. The Committee believes that addressing fraud 
and abuse in these programs will help insure their integrity 
and insure they will be available to participants for years to 
come. Finally, the Committee included in H.R. 3874 provisions 
to provide additional flexibility to States and local providers 
of nutrition programs. Local providers best understand the 
needs of program participants and the Committee wanted to 
insure their hands were not tied by unnecessary program 
requirements. -

                II. HEARINGS HELD BY THE FULL COMMITTEE

105th Congress, First Session

    February 4, 1997--H.R. 5, the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Improvement Act of 1997.
    February 6, 1997--H.R. 5, the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Improvement Act of 1997.
    February 20, 1997--The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention Act.
    February 26, 1997--Hearing on the Administration's Anti-
Gang and Youth Violence Initiative.
    April 7, 1997--Hearing on the Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention Act.
    April 8, 1997--Hearing on the Low Income Home Energy 
Assistance Act Program.
    April 9, 1997--Hearing on Charter Schools.
    April 17, 1997--Hearing on Food Safety in the School Lunch 
Program.
    April 29, 1997--Hearing on the Administration's National 
Testing Proposal.
    May 13, 1997--Hearing on the National Endowment for the 
Arts.
    May 20, 1997--Vocational and Technical Education: 
Broadening Opportunities for Students.
    May 21, 1997--Hearing on Proposed Legislation for the 
Juvenile Crime Control and Prevention Act.
    May 22, 1997--Vocational and Technical Education for the 
21st Century.
    June 5, 1997--Hearing on Vocational and Technical 
Education.
    June 26, 1997--Hearing on Charter Schools.
    July 9, 1997--Hearing on the Reauthorization of the Older 
Americans Act.
    July 16, 1997--Hearing on Reauthorization of the Older 
Americans Act.
    July 24, 1997--Hearing to ``Focus on Fatherhood''.
    August 22, 1997--Hearing on the Migrant Education Program.
    September 9, 1997--Hearing on School Choice Legislative 
Proposals.
    September 16, 1997--Hearing on Charter Schools.
    September 30, 1997--Hearing on Private and Public School 
Choice.

105th Congress, 2nd Session

    February 17, 1998--Field Hearing on ``Education Technology: 
Meeting the Needs of Tomorrow''.
    February 18, 1998--Field Hearing on ``Bilingual Education 
Reform''.
    February 24, 1998--Teacher Training.
    March 10, 1998--Child Nutrition Programs.
    March 12, 1998--Public and Private School Choice in the 
District of Columbia.
    March 16, 1998--Technology and Education: Working Together 
for the Future.
    March 17, 1998--Special Supplemental Nutritional Program 
for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).
    March 24, 1998--Educating Our Children with the Technology 
Skills to Compete in the Next Millennium.
    March 26, 1998--Joint Hearing on ``Head Start: Is It Making 
a Difference?''.
    April 28, 1998--Hearing on ``Understanding Violent 
Children''.
    April 30, 1998--Hearing on ``Reforming Bilingual 
Education''.
    May 7, 1998--Hearing on 3189, ``Parental Freedom of 
Information Act''.
    June 5, 1998--Hearing on ``Community Services Block 
Grant''.
    June 9, 1998--Hearing on ``Head Start''.
    June 11, 1998--Hearing on ``Reauthorization of the National 
Assessment of Educational Progress and the National Assessment 
Governing Board''.
    June 23, 1998--Hearing on ``Comprehensive School Reform 
Program''.
    July 7, 1998--Field Hearing on ``Authorization of Head 
Start''.
    July 10, 1998--Field Hearing on ``Authorization of Head 
Start''.

                III. Markups Held by the Full Committee

105th Congress, First Session

    June 12, 1997--H.R. 1818, Juvenile Crime Control and 
Delinquency Prevention Act of 1997.
    H.R. 1853, Carl D. Perkins Vocational-Technical Education 
Act Amendments of 1997.
    H. Res. 139, expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives that the Department of Education, States, and 
local education agencies should spend a greater percentage of 
Federal education tax dollars in our children's classrooms.

105th Congress, Second Session

    May 21, 1998--H. Res. 401, expressing the sense of the 
House of Representatives that social promotion in America's 
schools should be ended.
    H. Res. 399, urging the Congress and the President to work 
to fully fund the Federal Government's obligation under the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
    H.R. 3254, IDEA Technical Amendments Act of 1998.
    H.R. 3874, WIC Reauthorization Amendments of 1998.
    H.R. 3871, amend School Lunch Act to provide children with 
increased access to food and nutrition assistance during the 
summer months.
    H.R. 3892, English Language Fluency Act.

                      IV. Subcommittee Statistics

Total Number of Bills and Resolutions Referred to Subcommittee-...   175
Total Number of Hearings..........................................    40
    Field-........................................................     7
    Joint with Other Committees-..................................     4
Total Number of Subcommittee Markup Sessions -....................     2
Total Number of Bills Reported From Subcommittee -................     9

               SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT & INVESTIGATIONS

                        I. SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES

                      A. EDUCATION AT A CROSSROADS

What works and what's wasted in Federal education programs

    Since 1965, the federal government has spent hundreds of 
billions of dollars on educational improvement. Recent 
education statistics on student achievement, however, indicate 
there is little to show for this massive investment. During the 
105th Congress the Subcommittee on Oversight conducted the 
first comprehensive congressional review of federal education 
programs to determine what is working and what is wasted. This 
review was known as the ``Education at a Crossroads'' project. 
The purpose of the project was to identify the steps that lead 
in the direction of either educational excellence or failure, 
in order to develop a positive vision for making the federal 
role in education more effective in helping children learn.
          To accomplish this, the Subcommittee conducted 
        extensive research and field hearings around the 
        country to examine the following:
          1. Elements of successful schools;
          2. The extent to which federal education programs 
        contribute or detract from these elements of success;
          3. What is working efficiently and effectively;
          4. What is wasted.
    The project began in the 104th Congress when the 
Subcommittee asked the U.S. General Accounting Office to 
examine the elements of successful schools. During the 105th 
Congress, the Subcommittee listened to people whose voices are 
not often heard in Washington by holding 17 hearings around the 
country to examine what works and does not in federal education 
programs. Six additional hearings were held in Washington on 
issues such as teacher training, school safety and drug-abuse 
prevention programs. Across the country witnesses testified 
that bureaucracy diverts resources from students and makes 
education less effective and efficient. Many described the 
successes that they were able to achieve once they were freed 
from burdensome requirements and bureaucratic, ``one-size-fits-
all'' programs. Motivated and involved parents, as well as a 
curriculum focused on mastering the basics first, were also 
described by witnesses as being important components of 
successful schools.
    Based on this systematic review, the Subcommittee found 
that successful schools and school systems are not the product 
of federally designed programs, but instead are characterized 
by (a) parents involved in the education of their children; (b) 
local control; (c) emphasis on basic academics; and (d) dollars 
spent on the classroom, not bureaucracy and ineffective 
programs.
    The Subcommittee found that the current federal role in 
education does not generally support these elements of 
successful schools. Instead, it is uncoordinated and 
duplicative, and has produced little evidence of effectiveness.
    760 Education Programs.--One of the questions the 
Subcommittee sought to answer first was ``how many education-
related programs are funded by the federal government?'' After 
assembling an exhaustive database and files of program 
information, the Subcommittee found that overall, there are 
more than 760 federal education programs (nearly 100 of which 
are not funded) which span 39 agencies, boards, and 
commissions. These programs cost the American taxpayer nearly 
$100 billion annually. Only a small number of these programs 
are related to improving academic achievement in the classroom. 
The following are examples of what the Subcommittee found to be 
true of federal education programs:
           Even after accounting for recent reductions, 
        the U.S. Department of Education still requires over 
        48.6 million hours worth of paperwork per year--or the 
        equivalent of 25,000 employees working full-time.
           Although the Department of Education is one 
        of the smallest federal agencies with 4,637 employees, 
        according to GAO, there are about 13,400 FTEs (full-
        time equivalents) funded with federal dollars to 
        administer federal programs for State education 
        agencies.
           A study by the Heritage Foundation found 
        that for every tax dollar sent to Washington for 
        elementary and secondary education, 85 cents is 
        returned to local school districts. The remaining 15 
        cents is spent on bureaucracy and national and research 
        programs of unknown effectiveness. However, this study 
        did not take into account what schools must spend to 
        apply for funds and comply with any requirements, nor 
        did it track dollars all the way to the classroom. 
        Therefore, schools could be receiving much less than 85 
        cents on the dollar.
           In 1993, Vice-President Gore's National 
        Performance Review discovered that the Department of 
        Education's discretionary grant process lasted 26 weeks 
        and took 487 steps from start to finish. It was not 
        until 1996 that the Department finally took steps to 
        begin ``streamlining'' their long and protracted grant 
        review process, a process that has yet to be completed 
        and fully implemented. After the streamlining is 
        complete it will still take an average of 20 weeks and 
        216 steps to complete a review.
            Recommendations
    Based on these findings, the Subcommittee recommended that 
the education policy in the United States make ensuring that 
all children receive a quality education its first priority, 
not preserving ineffective programs and bureaucracies. However, 
the federal government cannot consistently and effectively 
replicate success stories throughout the nation in the form of 
federal programs. Instead, federal education dollars should 
support effective State and local initiatives, ensuring that it 
neither impedes local innovation and control, nor diverts 
dollars from the classroom through burdensome regulations and 
overhead.
    The federal government should play only a limited role in 
education. It should serve education at the State and local 
level as a research and statistics gathering agency, 
disseminating findings and enabling States to share best 
practices with each other. Local educators must be empowered to 
teach children with effective methods and adequate resources, 
without federalinterference. Parents must once again be in 
charge of the education of their children. Schools should be havens for 
learning, safe from drugs and violence.
    Specifically, to support what works in education, the 
Subcommittee made several policy proposals:
    Empower Parents.--In order to empower parents, Congress 
should reduce the family federal tax burden; encourage parental 
choice in education at all levels of government; create 
opportunity scholarships for poor children in Washington, D.C. 
and other federal empowerment zones; and allow States to send 
Title I (Aid to Disadvantaged Students) funds to impoverished 
parents as grants in order to enable their children to receive 
additional academic assistance.
    Local Control.--In order to return control to the local 
level Congress should return federal elementary and secondary 
education funds to States and local school districts through 
flexible grants; expand opportunities for waivers from 
burdensome regulations; give States and school districts 
greater freedom to consolidate program funds to more 
effectively address pressing needs; and provide no-strings-
attached funds for charter school start-up costs.
    Basic Academics.--Congress should also encourage effective 
classroom instruction by ensuring that federally funded 
education programs only use proven methods backed by 
scientifically based research; research and evaluation should 
concentrate on measuring outcomes and less on process--such as 
how many children are served by a particular program.
    Dollars to the Classroom.--Congress should send more 
dollars to the classroom by streamlining and consolidating 
duplicative federal education programs; reforming or 
eliminating ineffective and inefficient programs; and by 
reducing the paperwork burden.
            Subcommittee report
    The Subcommittee assembled the highlights of the hearings 
and research into a report. This report also contains policy 
and legislative recommendations to improve the current federal 
role in education. On July 17, 1998, the Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations adopted the report by a vote of 5-
2. The report, ``Education at a Crossroads: What Works and 
What's Wasted in Education Today,'' was made available to the 
general public via the World-Wide-Web, and was also printed by 
the U.S. Government Printing Office.

                              B. americorp

    The Corporation for National Service (CNS) was created in 
1993 under the direction of President Clinton. Its premier 
program is AmeriCorps, which enables 18-24-year-olds to provide 
a year of volunteer service in exchange for a living allowance 
and a higher education stipend. Significantly, when President 
Clinton proposed the legislation creating CNS, he said that it 
``would be run like a private venture capital outfit, not like 
a bureaucracy.''
    During the 104th Congress, the Subcommittee on Oversight 
and Investigations conducted two oversight hearings on CNS, 
discovering that the Corporation was unable to produce 
auditable books in its first attempt at doing so. It also 
discovered that it cost taxpayers about $26,000 for each 
AmeriCorps participant's one year of service.
    The 105th Congress built on these prior findings. On July 
24, 1997, the Subcommittee conducted a hearing to determine if 
CNS was any closer to transforming itself into an entity 
resembling a private-sector venture capital group. It was not. 
Indeed, auditors testifying at the hearing reported that 25% of 
the 99 weaknesses found in the original CNS audit still 
existed. The agency's books were still unauditable.
    At this same hearing, the CNS Inspector General and several 
outside auditors described other financial problems. CNS spent 
excessively on training services for volunteers contracted out 
to a variety of organizations--including a subsidiary of the 
AFL-CIO. The Corporation was also spending about $1.3 million 
annually on its palatial Presidio Leadership Center, which not 
only provides AmeriCorps training services, it also boasts two 
golf courses.
    In June 1998, the Committee wrote a letter to President 
Clinton, questioning his decision to give a partisan political 
speech before a group of AmeriCorps volunteers at a ``Rally of 
Idealism'' in Cleveland, Ohio. Given the President's assertions 
that the program no longer participates in partisan activities, 
his speech seemed particularly ill advised.
    In September 1998, the Committee learned that, after five 
years; CNS still cannot produce auditable books. It also 
learned, from the CNS Inspector General, that CNS does not have 
accurate information concerning how many service hours its 
volunteers have put in, or how many of these individuals have 
accumulated enough hours to qualify for educational awards.

                  c. national education association -

National Endowment for the Arts

    The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) has failed to 
receive reauthorization from the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce since the Republicans became the Majority Party in 
Congress in 1994. Instead, during that time, the NEA has been 
the subject of an ongoing investigation. This investigation, 
conducted by the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, 
is guided by three core questions: Does the NEA have an 
appropriate federal role? Does it operate effectively and 
efficiently? And, does it follow congressional intent?
    These questions were addressed as part of a hearing jointly 
conducted on May 13, 1997 by the Oversight Subcommittee and the 
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families. At the 
hearing, several Members of Congress as well as arts policy 
experts testified about themission of the NEA, its performance 
and its compliance with the role envisioned for it by Congress.
    Subsequent to the hearing, the Oversight Subcommittee 
released a comprehensive report entitled, ``Creative America'' 
on issues surrounding the NEA. The report explores the three 
core questions cited above, making use of detailed data 
concerning the distribution of NEA grants, the extent of 
private arts funding in America and other pertinent statistics. 
For instance, the report finds that: the NEA accounts for less 
than 1% of total national spending on the arts; private giving 
to the arts is unaffected by reductions in NEA funding; the NEA 
spends 18% of its budget on administration; and one-third of 
Congressional Districts fail to get any direct funding from the 
agency.
    The report arrives at the following conclusions: The NEA 
does not have an appropriate federal role; it does not operate 
effectively and efficiently; and it does not follow 
congressional intent. It recommends the elimination of the NEA. 
Alternatively--if elimination turns out to be politically 
unfeasible--the report recommends a set of restrictions be 
immediately imposed on the agency. These include: placing the 
NEA under the Chief Financial Officer's Act of 1990; placing a 
10% limitation on administrative spending in the NEA budget; 
inserting a $500,000 line item budget appropriation for the NEA 
Inspector General; and increasing restrictions on the funding 
of objectionable art by the agency.

                           D. direct lending

Direct lending oversight

    Ever since the Federal Direct Student Loan Program (FDSLP) 
began in 1993, the Committee on Education and the Workforce has 
monitored its progress with care. Under this program, the 
Department of Education acts as one of the largest banks in the 
United States, making loans to millions of students across the 
nation. The Clinton Administration initiated the FDSLP in order 
to create a government competitor to the Federal Family 
Education Loan Program (FFELP), the other major federal student 
loan program, which is run by private lenders. The 
Administration hoped that, eventually, the FDSLP would assume 
responsibility for all federally backed student loans.
    During the 104th Congress, Committee Members expressed 
concern about direct lending on several grounds: It was an 
inappropriate responsibility of the federal government; it 
would not be administered efficiently and expensively; and it 
would lead to a federal monopoly over student loans. Many 
schools and colleges also expressed skepticism by opting not to 
participate in the FDSLP; the program did not grow as fast as 
the Administration had expected. Still, about one-third of 
federal student loans are now processed via direct lending.
    During the 104th and 105th Congresses, the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce has closely monitored the 
performance of the FDSLP. Working in concert with the General 
Accounting Office, the Education Department's Inspector General 
and the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, the 
Committee uncovered many troubling facts about the FDSLP. 
Consistent with its history of contracting problems, the 
Department made a host of costly errors in writing contracts 
for the private companies hired to assist in the administration 
of the FDSLP. This and other factors resulted in higher than 
expected administrative expenses. And the Department did not 
appear to be getting much for its money. The millions of loan 
records that contractors maintained on their computers were 
found to be carrying a great deal of faulty data.
    On August 25, 1997, the direct loan program's main 
contractor informed the Committee that it would have to stop 
accepting new consolidation loan applications due to a huge 
existing backlog of applications that would take many months to 
process. This scenario seemed to confirm the worst fears of the 
Committee--that the FDSLP would be so inefficient as to leave 
thousands of students in the lurch, waiting vainly for loans to 
be processed.
    Several such students came to Washington, D.C. to testify 
at a hearing on the loan consolidation shutdown convened by the 
Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education and Life-Long Learning 
on September 18, 1997. These individuals had been left waiting 
for their loan consolidations to go through, their lives 
suspended, while the Department's FDSLP contractor struggled 
with a backlog of 80,000 applications.
    Students with direct loans who wished to consolidate were 
left with nowhere to go. Therefore, Representative Buck McKeon 
(R-CA), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education 
and Life-Long Learning, introduced on September 24, 1998 the 
Emergency Student Loan Consolidation Act of 1997 (H.R. 2535). 
The bill was designed to make it temporarily possible for a 
student with both FFELP and direct loans to consolidate in the 
FFELP program, which was not possible under existing law. H.R. 
2535 was marked up by the Full Committee on October 1, 1997 and 
was passed by the House on October 21, 1997. Senator James 
Jeffords introduced a similar bill in the Senate. Eventually, 
the essential components of both the McKeon and Jeffords bills 
were written into the final version of H.R. 2264, the Labor, 
Health and Human Services Appropriations bill for fiscal year 
1998, which became P.L. 105-78.
    On July 1, 1998, the Department reduced the rate for FDSLP 
consolidation loans, without soliciting input from the 
Committee, which opposed the maneuver because it created an 
unequal playing field in the competition between the FDSLP and 
the FFELP over consolidation loans. Members were also concerned 
that the Department was again courting disaster by creating a 
potential scenario where its contractor would be overwhelmed by 
a sudden influx of loan consolidation applications. Several 
Committee Members sent a letter on July 22, 1998 to the 
Department asking if the contractor had fixed the problems that 
contributed to the 1997 shutdown and was prepared to handle 
increased volume. At the same time, the Committee worked 
closely with the General Accounting Office to independently 
determine whether or not the contractor was prepared.
    In drafting H.R. 6, the Higher Education Reauthorization 
Amendments of 1998, Committee Members recreated an equal 
playing field on which the FFELP and FDSLP willcompete for 
consolidation loans. H.R. 6, which was signed into law on October 7, 
1998, stipulates that interest rates on both types of consolidation 
loans will be the same, beginning in February 1999.

       E. ensuring fairness in federal contracting: the clinton 
         administration's proposed ``blacklisting'' regulations

    Since Vice President Gore announced in February 1997 that 
the administration would propose sweeping changes to rules 
governing federal contracts, the Committee has kept a close 
watch on the issue and has made certain the administration 
knows of the Committee's deep concerns. On July 14, 1998, the 
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee held a hearing on 
yet-to-be-released ``blacklisting'' regulations, sending a 
clear message to the administration that the proposals appear 
to be vague, unfair, and unauthorized, and represent a 
political solution in search of a problem.
    Vice President Gore had announced at an AFL-CIO Executive 
Council annual winter meeting in 1997 that the administration 
would introduce regulations preventing federal contractors and 
subcontractors with ``unsatisfactory'' records of labor or 
employment practices from receiving federal contracts--
effectively creating a ``blacklist'' to shut out various 
contractors from the yearly pool of approximately $200 billion 
in federal contracting dollars. He also promised regulations 
that would deny reimbursement to federal contractors for legal 
and consulting expenses incurred during labor disputes, even 
though the law is well settled that legal expenses incurred by 
a business in connection with the performance of a government 
contract represent legitimate business expenses for which the 
federal government permits reimbursement.
    The Subcommittee's July 14 hearing was prompted by the 
administration ignoring repeated inquiries by the Committee--to 
President Clinton, to Vice President Gore, to the past 
administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy and 
to his current acting successor, and to the Office of 
Management and Budget--to keep it apprised of its actions.
    During the hearing, an outstanding panel of procurement 
attorneys--including former President Carter's administrator of 
the Office of Federal Procurement Policy--demonstrated that the 
proposals are unnecessary under current law and simply an 
attempt to legislate by executive fiat.
    Since the administration ignored the Committee's requests 
for information, the O&I Subcommittee received testimony from 
Edward DeSeve, controller and acting deputy director for 
management, Office of Management and Budget, who testified that 
the proposals are still in their preliminary stages but did not 
offer a timetable for their release.
    The Committee maintains its concern that such regulations 
would not only substantially revise federal labor law outside 
the proper Congressional legislative process, but are 
unnecessary because current law already provides for government 
review of a potential contractor's past performance record, 
record of integrity and business ethics, and capability to 
perform the contract. In short, current law already contains 
extensive debarment procedures for ``bad actors.'' The 
Committee will remain vigilant for further administration 
efforts to bypass Congress' role in fashioning this nation's 
labor legislation.

                        f. year 2000 compliance

Department of Education

    Federal agencies use complex computer systems to do 
accounting, distribute grants and loans and perform myriad 
other essential functions. Many of these critical computer 
systems must be renovated or replaced before January 1, 2000, 
because they are unable to process post-1999 date information.
    The Department of Education uses 11 large, complicated 
mainframe computer systems to process student aid information, 
track loans, and ensure that college students receive grants 
and loans in a timely manner. Due to the Department's 
reluctance to upgrade its information technology 
infrastructure, several of these systems date back to the 
1970s. They contain millions of lines of computer coding that 
must be carefully examined by programmers for date problems.
    If these systems experience disruptions when processing 
post-1999 dates, the entire student aid edifice that millions 
of students rely on will be jeopardized. Nevertheless, the 
Department did not make significant strides in addressing the 
Year 2000 problem until the fall of 1997, after a March report 
from the Department's Inspector General warned of the hazards 
of further stalling. One reason for the delays: Five different 
individuals had served in the post of Year 2000 project manager 
at the Department during a three-year period.
    In September 1998, the Office of Management and Budget 
announced that the Department of Education was in the lowest 
tier of federal agencies in terms of progress in addressing the 
Year 2000 computer problem. About the same time, Representative 
Steve Horn (R-CA), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Information 
and Technology of the House Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight, released a report card on federal agencies that 
awarded the Department of Education an ``F'' and predicted that 
it would not be compliant until 2030. On September 17, 1998, 
the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee held a hearing on 
the status of the Department's Year 2000 efforts. At the 
hearing, the results of a study that the Subcommittee had 
requested from the GAO raised concern among Members about the 
pace of the Department's progress. Also at the hearing, the 
Acting Deputy Secretary of the Department of Education assured 
Members that the Department would fix 163 of its 168 non-
mission critical systems by the end of the month.
    Subcommittee Chairman Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) decided to make 
sure the Department was as good as its word. At his request, 
GAO officials conducted a ``real-time'' on-site audit at the 
Department on October 1, 1998 to determine if it had fixed the 
systems. At a follow-up hearing on October 8, 1998 GAO 
disclosed that 23 of the systems were actually non-compliant 
when the auditors arrived at the Department. In other words, 
the Department had fallen substantially short of its target. 
This called into question the Department's ability to set 
realistic timelines for itself and not be caught short when 
January 1, 2000 actually arrives.
    Still, the Subcommittee's efforts appeared to be making a 
difference. A GAO official testifying at the October 8, 1998 
hearing mentioned that the Department had picked up its repair 
pace. He said, ``When congressional oversight on Year 2000 
becomes evident, agencies move. And that's what's happened in 
my opinion with this.''
    The Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee plans to stay 
apprised of the Department's Year 2000 work as the millennium 
approaches. Still, since the Department got off to a late 
start, at least minor disruptions caused by the arrival of the 
Year 2000 are a near-certainty, according to the GAO. Of 
greatest concern are the countless data exchanges that occur 
among the Department's computers and between these computers 
and those of private partners such as banks and colleges. GAO 
expressed pessimism at the hearings that the Department has 
allotted sufficient time during 1999 for all of the various 
data exchange pathways to be tested for Year 2000 compliance.
    To address this concern, Members of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce serving as conferees for a bill 
reauthorizing the Higher Education Act (H.R. 6), strengthened a 
provision in the bill (Sec. 493A) concerning the Department's 
Year 2000 compliance. Language was inserted into the bill that 
requires, for instance, the Department to submit a report 
describing in detail the testing it conducts with its data 
exchange partners to the Comptroller General not later than 
March 31, 1999. H.R. 6 became P.L. 105-244 on October 7, 1998.
    The Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee is also 
monitoring the Year 2000 progress of smaller federal agencies 
under its jurisdiction, including the National Endowment for 
the Arts and the Corporation for National Service (CNS). The 
October 8, 1998 Subcommittee hearing cited above included a 
panel on CNS and the Year 2000. It was disclosed during the 
panel that CNS has yet to begin remediating its accounting 
system, perhaps the single computer system most critical to the 
Corporation's functioning.

Department of Labor

    The challenges posed by the Year 2000 computer problem are 
significant for the Department of Labor (DOL). Representative 
Steve Horn, whose Subcommittee on Government Management, 
Information and Technology has graded all federal agencies on 
preparations for Year 2000 computer transitions, has given DOL 
a grade of ``D'', falling from an earlier score of ``C'' in 
June 1998. The Department of Labor estimated that it will need 
a total of $51.1 million (FY 1996-2000). This is due to updates 
in infrastructure assessments, embedded chip devices, hardware 
and software changes, re-hiring inspectors to be used on-site 
at mining operations and the increased cost for staffing.
    DOL identified 61 mission-critical computer systems that 
must be Year 2000 compliant or which must have a contingency 
plan in place to ensure that important DOL responsibilities are 
carried out. Mission-critical systems carry out the major 
functions of the Department. DOL has identified 79 non-mission 
critical systems that must also reach compliance before January 
1, 2000. Some of the many DOL systems that must be compliant 
include those providing workers' compensation benefits to 
federal employees, generating unemployment data, administering 
training and employment programs, and generating vital 
statistics on the U.S. economy, unemployment rates, and the 
consumer price index.
            Mission-critical systems
    As of August 1998, the Department has a total of 61 
mission-critical systems and 24 (39%) of these are Year 2000 
compliant. Representative Horn's September report on the 
Department of Labor found that only 52% of the mission-critical 
systems would be compliant by March 1999 and that DOL would not 
reach Year 2000 compliance until 2001. Of particular concern is 
the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) because 23 (11 are 
compliant and 12 are not) of the 61 mission-critical systems 
are located in this agency. The BLS system, used to develop the 
Consumer Price Index (CPI), is behind schedule and is cause for 
concern.
            Verification
    The Department of Labor is required to independently verify 
that systems repaired and replaced are actually fixed and 
working. At this point, the Department of Labor is just 
beginning to initiate independent verification of their 
systems. Testing of 6 of the mission-critical systems will be 
completed by October 15, 1998. A plan to test the remaining 55 
mission-critical systems will be implemented after the initial 
6 systems are tested. The DOL Inspector General and the General 
Accounting Office (GAO) have expressed concerns that the 
Department's independent verification schedule is a problem 
given the compressed time schedule for having all testing 
implemented and completed by March 1999. GAO has also expressed 
concern that DOL data on the OMB quarterly reports does not 
always consistently report progress.
            Unemployment insurance
    DOL must ensure that States are making adequate progress in 
developing Year 2000 solutions for the unemployment system. 
This is a very real trouble spot for DOL because the federal 
agency must interact with 53 State employment agencies.
    There are 6 States/territories that are in danger of not 
reaching Year 2000 compliance including: Arkansas, Delaware, 
District of Columbia, New Mexico, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin 
Islands. In addition, there are two States (Florida and 
Michigan) that are on the ``watch list'' due to poor 
performance related to system development efforts. Both the GAO 
and the DOL Inspector General have expressed concern about the 
potential failures. One particular concern is the Unemployment 
Insurance system in Puerto Rico, which is scheduled to fail on 
Monday, January 4, 1999. Similar systems may fail over the next 
3 months in the District of Columbia and Delaware. These 
systems would fail because unemployment insurance claims are 
established for one year in advance from the date the claim is 
filed. This means, for instance, that a claim filed on January 
4, 1999, will calculate a benefit year ending date of January 
4, 2000. Without a Year 2000 fix, benefits can not be 
calculated correctly.
            Contingency plans
    DOL is required to have Business Continuity Contingency 
Plans prepared for all mission-critical systems that are not 
expected to meet the March 1999 deadline. DOL has worked to 
develop and evaluate contingency plans for all 61 mission-
critical systems. However, the GAO and the DOL Inspector 
General have expressed concern about the progress of the 
contingency planning by the Department and the need for more 
action in this area.
            GAO report on OWCP
    The General Accounting Office issued a report on Year 2000 
compliance for the Office of Workers' Compensation (OWCP). The 
report found that OWCP processes about 207,000 claims for 
workers' compensation and provided about $3 billion in benefits 
to eligible workers. After GAO began to investigate, the 
administrators of the computers that run the Federal Employees' 
Compensation program, the Longshore and Harbor Workers' 
Compensation program, and the Black Lung program, took specific 
steps to correct problems. For example, GAO visited the 
Longshore district office in Philadelphia to view how claims 
were tracked. During the visit, GAO used the computer system to 
project benefit payments beyond the Year 2000 to verify that 
the system could handle the dates. After each test, GAO saw a 
blank screen appear on the monitor. The case management system 
is scheduled to be tested later this year with an 
implementation date of December 1998. OWCP has not completed 
independent testing of the computer systems, which is an area 
of concern.
    On September 17, 1998, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations heard testimony on DOL's efforts to achieve Year 
2000 readiness. GAO highlighted problems it has uncovered 
within the Department of Labor concerning Year 2000 compliance, 
including the programs in the Office of Workers Compensation, 
trouble spots at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, significant 
problems with the Unemployment Insurance System and its 
interaction with State employment agencies, as well as 
verification problems at the Department of Labor. The Inspector 
General for the Department of Labor testified with respect to 
reporting inconsistencies, lack of scheduling of independent 
verification and validation that Year 2000 computer fixes will 
work, and a lack of contingency planning for systems that may 
not meet the Year 2000 deadlines. The Subcommittee will 
continue to monitor DOL's preparations as Year 2000 approaches.

                 II. Hearings Held by the Subcommittee

105th Congress, First Session

    January 30, 1997--Hearing on Education at a Crossroads, 
What Works, What's Wasted.
    January 31, 1997--Hearing on Education at a Crossroads, 
What Works, What's Wasted.
    March 3, 1997--Hearing on Education at a Crossroads, What 
Works, What's Wasted.
    March 6, 1997--Hearing on Education at a Crossroads, What 
Works, What's Wasted.
    May 1, 1997--Hearing on Education at a Crossroads: What 
Works and What's Wasted in the D.C. School System.
    May 5, 1997--Hearing on Education at a Crossroads: What 
Works? What's Wasted?
    May 8, 1997--Hearing on ``Dollars to the Classroom''.
    May 13, 1997--Hearing on the National Endowment for the 
Arts.
    May 27, 1997--Hearing on Education at a Crossroads, What 
Works, What's Wasted.
    May 28, 1997--Hearing on Education at a Crossroads, What 
Works, What's Wasted.
    May 29, 1997--Hearing on Education at a Crossroads, What 
Works, What's Wasted.
    June 10, 1997--Hearing on the Family and Medical Leave Act 
of 1993.
    June 24, 1997--Hearing on Education at a Crossroads, What 
Works and What's Wasted in Federal Drug Violence Prevention 
Programs?
    July 8, 1997--Hearing on ``Education at a Crossroads: What 
Works and What's Wasted in Teacher Training Programs?''
    July 16, 1997--Hearing on ``Ergonomics: A Question of 
Feasibility''.
    July 24, 1997--Hearing on ``The Accounting and Management 
Practices of the Corporation for National Service''.
    July 30, 1997--Joint Hearing to Review the Davis-Bacon Act.
    September 12, 1997--``Education at a Crossroads: What 
Works? What's Wasted?''
    October 2, 1997--``Education at a Crossroads: What Works? 
What's Wasted?''
    October 14, 1997--Hearing on the 1996 Election of the 
International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
    October 15, 1997--Hearing on the 1996 Election of the 
International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
    October 29, 1997--Hearing on the Future of Work in America.
    November 3, 1997--Field Hearing on ``Education at a 
Crossroads: What Works? What's Wasted?''

105th Congress, Second Session

    March 20, 1998--Education at a Crossroads: What Works and 
What's Wasted.
    March 25, 1998--Department of Labor's Denial of Employment 
Service Funds to the States.
    March 26, 1998--Financial Affairs of the International 
Brotherhood of Teamsters.
    March 30, 1998--Education at a Crossroads: What Works and 
What's Wasted.
    March 31, 1998--American Worker Project: Workplace 
Competitive Issues.
    April 23, 1998--Hearing on ``American Worker Project: 
Emerging Trends in the High-Tech Workplace''.
    April 28, 1998--Hearing on ``American Worker Project: 
Impact of Federal Workplace Agencies, Programs and Laws on the 
American Worker''.
    April 29, 1998--Hearing on ``Teamsters' Investigation''.
    April 30, 1998--Hearing on ``Teamsters' Investigation''.
    May 8, 1998--Hearing on ``American Worker Project: 
Determining the Appropriateness of Rulemaking at the U.S. 
Department of Labor--Regulatory Strategies Outside the Scope of 
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)''.
    May 19, 1998--Hearing on ``Who Pays for the Rerun 
Teamsters' Election?''
    May 20, 1998--Hearing on ``American Worker Project: 
Innovative Workplaces for the Future''.
    June 16, 1998--Hearing on ``International Brotherhood of 
Teamsters Financial Reporting & -Pension Disclosures''.
    June 17, 1998--Continuation of Hearing on ``International 
Brotherhood of Teamsters Financial Reporting & Pension 
Disclosures''.
    June 19, 1998--Hearing on ``American Worker Project; 
Evaluating Regulatory Practices at the U.S. Department of 
Labor''.
    June 24, 1998--Hearing on ``American Worker Project: 
Meeting the Needs of the 21st Century Workplace''.
    July 14, 1998--Hearing on the Administration's Proposed 
Contracting Regulations: ``Good Government'' or 
``Blacklisting''?
    July 24, 1998--Hearing on ``International Brotherhood of 
Teamsters Governance and Practice''.
    July 30, 1998--Hearing on The Internal Review Board.
    August 5, 1998--Hearing on Prison Industry Programs: 
Effects on Inmates, Law-Abiding Workers, and Business.
    August 6, 1998--Hearing on the American Worker at a 
Crossroads Project: the Rationale for and the Effect of the 
Garment Industry Proviso Under Section 8(e) of the National 
Labor Relations Act.
    August 26, 1998--Field Hearing on Education at a 
Crossroads: What Works? What's Needed?
    September 10, 1998--Hearing on Regulatory Activities at the 
U.S. Department of Labor-Garment Industry Trendsetters.
    September 17, 1998--Hearing to Review the Management of the 
Year 2000 Computer Problem by the Department of Education and 
the Department of Labor.
    September 25, 1998--Hearing on the Role of Business in the 
Competitive Garment Industry.
    September 28, 1998--American Worker Project: Department of 
Labor--Financial Analysis and Management Accountability.
    September 29, 1998--Hearing on The International 
Brotherhood of Teamsters.
    October 6, 1998--Hearing on The International Brotherhood 
of Teamsters Efforts to Settle the Teamsters' Strike at Diamond 
Walnut Growers, Inc.
    October 8, 1998--Hearing to Review the Status of the Year 
2000 Computer Program at the Department of Education and 
Corporation for National Service.

                 III. Markups Held by the Subcommittee

105th Congress, Second Session

    February 19, 1998--Adoption of the Protocol for the 
Subcommittee Investigation of the invalidated 1996 Teamster 
election.
    Motion to authorize the issuance of five subpoenas duces 
tecum to compel the production of documents (Teamster 
election).
    March 10, 1998--Motion to authorize the issuance of six 
subpoenas duces tecum to compel the production of documents 
(Teamster election).
    July 17, 1998--Motion to adopt the Subcommittee's 
Crossroads Report.

                      IV. Subcommittee Statistics

Total Number of Hearings..........................................    52
    Field.........................................................    11
    Joint with Other Committees-..................................     3
Total Number of Subcommittee Markup Sessions......................     3
Total Number of Subpoenas Issued by the Subcommittee..............    11

             V. SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE

                A. Investigation of the Teamsters Union

    On August 26, 1997, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations, Representative Pete Hoekstra, 
announced that the Subcommittee would begin an investigation of 
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters' 1996 election of 
officers. Four days before this announcement, the IBT's 
Election Officer had invalidated the election results and 
ordered a rerun of the election because of several large and 
improper contributions to the campaign of Teamsters' General 
President Ron Carey. Chairman Hoekstra stated three goals for 
the Subcommittee's investigation: (1) to account for the 
approximately $20 million in taxpayer funds spent on 
supervising the election; (2) to explore the illegal 
contributions and other improprieties that corrupted the 
election; and (3) to ensure that the rerun election is 
conducted effectively and with integrity. The Subcommittee made 
substantial progress toward achieving each of these goals.
    Under the terms of the 1989 Consent Decree, the federal 
government had the option to have the 1996 IBT election 
supervised. The government exercised this option and provided 
over $17.6 million during the period 1993 to 1997 to fund the 
Office of the Election Officer, the court-appointed official 
responsible for supervising the entire election process. The 
Subcommittee sought to ensure that these taxpayer funds were 
spent wisely and effectively. The Subcommittee sought to ensure 
that the types of problems that invalidated the 1996 election 
do not occur in the rerun election. Two years after the last 
election, with the Teamsters union still lacking a duly elected 
leadership and the federal government sharing the costs of the 
rerun election, it is vitally important that these funds are 
not wasted again.
    In the course of investigating these matters, the 
Subcommittee uncovered other wrongdoing involving the 
misappropriation of union funds and improper ties between the 
IBT and the White House. In fact, IBT officials engaged in a 
long pattern of misconduct that was not limited to funneling 
union funds to the Carey re-election campaign in the last week 
of October 1996. Simply put, the International Brotherhood of 
Teamsters has not been maintained solely for the benefit of its 
members. Instead, while the union was already in financial 
disarray, senior Teamster officials misused the union's 
treasury for their political benefit. Not only did these IBT 
officials and consultants misappropriate union funds for 
campaign efforts, but there also appears to have been an effort 
to manipulate and to misrepresent the union's pension funds and 
financial condition dating back to 1994. IBT officials 
threatened and interfered with others who questioned the 
union's expenditures. All of these matters remain under 
investigation by the Subcommittee as it attempts to evaluate 
the performance of federal agencies charged with union 
oversight, and the effectiveness of federal laws designed to 
protect union members from financial and other types abuse.

Federal supervision and the consent decree

    Ironically, all of this misconduct occurred during a period 
when the IBT has been perhaps the most scrutinized union in 
American history. Due to the decades-long domination of the IBT 
by organized crime, the Justice Department filed suit under the 
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) in 
1988. The government and the IBT settled the suit in 1989 by 
agreeing to a Consent Decree, the primary purpose of which was 
to ensure ``that the IBT . . . be maintained democratically, 
with integrity and for the sole benefit of its members and 
without unlawful outside influence.'' The Consent Decree 
provided a wide-ranging framework for supervision of the IBT 
and its financial and disciplinary operations by the government 
and its agents. The Consent Decree also established direct 
elections for international union offices.
    Federal supervision of the IBT was divided into two phases. 
The first phase entailed strong, proactive government 
involvement in the IBT's activities to rid the union of corrupt 
influence and pave the way for its first ever democratic 
election in 1991. To achieve these goals, the Consent Decree 
provided for the appointment of three officers: an Independent 
Administrator, an Election Officer, and an Investigations 
Officer. The Election Officer supervised the 1991 election and 
ensured that it was conducted in a free and fair manner. The 
Investigations Officer had the authority to investigate 
corruption within the IBT and recommend charges to the 
Independent Administrator. The Independent Administrator (1) 
ruled on these charges; (2) meted out appropriate punishment, 
including expulsion from the union; and (3) vetoed any IBT 
financial transaction that would constitute or further 
racketeering activity.
    The second phase of the Consent Decree, which began in 
October 1992, relegated the Government to a more reactive 
position. A three-member Independent Review Board (IRB) took 
over the disciplinary roles of the Independent Administrator 
and the Investigations Officer. The Attorney General, the IBT, 
and Judge Edelstein each appointed one member of the IRB. The 
IRB does not have the authority to veto financial transactions.
    Ron Carey won the 1991 election for the IBT's General 
Presidency, and candidates on Carey's slate captured every 
position on the IBT's General Executive Board (GEB). The Carey 
slate took office in 1992 as self-styled reformers who would 
help the Teamsters shed the bad reputation the union had 
acquired after suffering through a half-century of domination 
by organized crime.
    Carey was a candidate for re-election in the supervised 
1996 election. Carey won a narrow victory over James P. Hoffa, 
but the Election Officer, Barbara Zack Quindel, refused to 
certify the results after concluding that illegal funds may 
have allowed Carey to win the election. The Election Officer 
found that Carey's campaign consultants and officials of the 
IBT laundered money from the union's treasury through several 
organizations to Carey's reelection campaign. Among the most 
significant of these ``contribution swaps'' were the following:
           The IBT gave $150,000 to the AFL-CIO; the 
        AFL-CIO, in turn, gave $150,000 to Citizen Action (a 
        nonprofit advocacy organization); Citizen Action then 
        gave $100,000 to the November Group, which used the 
        funds to mail campaign literature to rank-and-file 
        Teamsters on Carey's behalf.
           The IBT gave $475,000 to Citizen Action, 
        $175,000 to Project Vote (a get-out-the-vote 
        organization), and $85,000 to the National Council of 
        Senior Citizens. In exchange, Carey campaign operatives 
        persuaded prospective donors to those organizations to 
        contribute to the Carey campaign.
           The Carey campaign conspired with the 
        Democrat National Committee to attempt to raise funds 
        from Democrat donors in exchange for larger than 
        expected political contributions from the IBT to State 
        Democrat parties.
           In addition, the Carey campaign received 
        over $100,000 in contributions from labor lawyers, 
        officers of other labor unions, campaign vendors, and 
        their spouses, even though these contributions were 
        prohibited under the Election Rules and federal law.
    As a result of these transactions, the Election Officer 
ordered a rerun election. After Ms. Quindel resigned due to a 
possible conflict of interest, her replacement as Election 
Officer issued a ruling on November 17, 1997 disqualifying 
Carey from the rerun election because of his knowledge of these 
fundraising schemes. The following week, three momentous events 
altered the union's power structure. First, the Justice 
Department and the IBT agreed to create the position of 
Independent Financial Auditor for the IBT, a position with veto 
authority similar to that had been held by the Independent 
Administrator. Two days later, Carey took an unpaid leave of 
absence. Later the same day, the IRB charged Carey with 
bringing reproach upon the union.
    Since the corruption of the Carey campaign came to light, a 
criminal investigation has been underway in the office of the 
United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. 
Thus far, three of Carey's campaign aides have entered guilty 
pleas in federal court and are cooperating with prosecutors. An 
attorney for Carey's campaign and a fundraiser involved in the 
money-laundering schemes also pled guilty to federal charges. 
The IBT's former political director, William Hamilton, has been 
indicted by a federal grand jury. The IRB has barred Carey and 
Hamilton from the union for life. The Secretary-Treasurer and 
the International Vice Presidents elected on the Carey slate in 
1996 continue to hold office, run the union's operations, and 
most are candidates in the rerun election.

Investigative efforts

    The Subcommittee looked into a number of allegations of 
misconduct involving the Teamsters union. A partial list 
includes the fundraising swaps of the 1996 election and the 
role that other organizations may have played in these schemes, 
Clinton Administration efforts to grant favors to the IBT in 
exchange for political contributions, misuse of IBT personnel 
for campaign purposes, manipulation of pension funds under IBT 
control, filing inaccurate forms with the Department of Labor, 
the manipulation of the union's net worth and a corresponding 
membership dues increase, misuse of the union's internal 
Ethical Practices Committee, the reasons why so many IBT local 
unions have been placed under trusteeship, the IBT's lack of 
internal auditing practices, and the use of federal grants by 
the IBT and other entities involved in the fundraising schemes. 
In addition, the Subcommittee monitored the activities of the 
Election Officer, the Independent Review Board, and the 
Independent Financial Auditor to ensure they are discharging 
their duties in an acceptable manner.
    To explore these matters, the Subcommittee conducted 
interviews, depositions, and hearings, and requested and 
subpoenaed documents. Pursuant to its requests, the 
Subcommittee received documents from dozens of entities, 
including the U.S. Departments of Labor, Justice, and 
Agriculture; the National Labor Relations Board; the United 
States Trade Representative; the United States Secret Service; 
the White House; the Federal Election Commission; the National 
Council of Senior Citizens; the AFL-CIO; the American 
Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees; Project 
Vote; Axis Enterprises; the Convention Management Group; the 
Share Group; DeLancey Printing; and Clinton-Gore '96. The 
Subcommittee also received voluminous and unsolicited material 
from Teamsters members throughout the country.
    The Subcommittee and Chairman Goodling issued a total of 
seventeen subpoenas for documents to the following individuals 
and organizations: the Democrat National Committee; the IBT; 
Peter D. Hart Research Associates; the November Group; Cohen, 
Weiss, & Simon; Grant Thornton LLP; Covington & Burling; 
Palladino & Sutherland; the Segal Company; Citizen Action; Tom 
Sever, the IBT's acting General President; Howrey & Simon; the 
U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York; Lewis 
Schiliro, Deputy Director in Charge, New York office of the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation; Diamond Walnut Growers, Inc.; 
and Kelly Press. Seven financial institutions also received 
subpoenas for specific bank accounts.
    Throughout the Subcommittee's investigation, the current 
IBT leadership followed a three-pronged strategy of 
obstruction:
          1. The IBT refused to provide key documents. The 
        Subcommittee first requested documents from the union 
        on January 28, 1998. When full compliance from the 
        Teamsters was not forthcoming, the Subcommittee issued 
        a second subpoena to the union on March 10, 1998, and 
        subpoenas for other documents to the union and the 
        IBT's Acting President, Tom Sever, have followed. 
        Although the IBT produced thousands of pages of 
        documents to the Subcommittee pursuant to these 
        subpoenas--while claiming the productions were 
        ``voluntary''--its document productions were neither on 
        time nor complete. In addition, many of these documents 
        were inexplicably redacted. The IBT, through its legal 
        counsel, withheld hundreds of other documents for 
        months claiming attorney-client and work product 
        privileges. Citing First Amendment concerns, the IBT 
        also refused to produce other documents related to 
        strikes or political activities. Regarding one 
        particular category of documents, the IBT agreed to 
        allow Subcommittee staff to review them only when faced 
        with the possibility of being held in contempt of 
        Congress the following day.
          2. The IBT ordered third parties to withhold 
        documents. The Subcommittee and Chairman Goodling 
        subpoenaed documents from Grant Thornton LLP, the Segal 
        Company, Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Covington & 
        Burling, Howrey & Simon, and Palladino & Sutherland. 
        The IBT, which had hired these companies in various 
        capacities, directed them not to comply with the 
        Subcommittee's subpoenas, citing confidentiality 
        concerns and the privileges discussed above.
          3. The IBT prevented interviews of key individuals. 
        The Subcommittee first requested informal interviews 
        with three senior Teamsters officials--Carey's 
        Executive Assistant, the IBT Director of Accounting, 
        and the IBT Director of Organizing--on March 17, 1998. 
        Over the next four months, the IBT repeatedly refused 
        to allow interviews of these three individuals, or of 
        any IBT financial personnel. In fact, the IBT even 
        prevented interviews of employees of its accounting and 
        actuarial firms.
    In response to these tactics, the House of Representatives 
passed H. Res. 507 on July 30, 1998, which authorized 
Subcommittee staff to depose witnesses without requiring the 
presence of Members of the Committee. In the three months 
following that vote, staff members deposed fifteen individuals 
with knowledge of the various areas the Subcommittee is 
investigating. Since October 1997, the Subcommittee held a 
total of eleven hearings over twelve days. There might have 
been more, however; the Subcommittee refrained from conducting 
interviews, depositions, and public hearings into some aspects 
of the fundraising swaps at the request of the Department of 
Justice. Among those who testified in a deposition or hearing 
are the following:
           Tom Sever, IBT General Secretary-Treasurer 
        and acting General President.
           Judith Scott, former IBT General Counsel and 
        former Executive Assistant to the President.
           Ron Carver, IBT Director of Strategic 
        Campaigns.
           Joseph Selsavage, IBT Director of 
        Accounting.
           Jim Bosley, Executive Assistant to the IBT 
        Secretary-Treasurer.
           Robert Hauptman, Special Assistant to the 
        IBT General President.
           Aaron Belk, an IBT Vice President who also 
        served as Carey's Executive Assistant and Administrator 
        of the IBT Ethical Practices Committee.
           Gregory Mullenholz, Sr., former DRIVE 
        Supervisor.
           Ambassador Mickey Kantor, former U.S. Trade 
        Representative.
           Tom Glynn and Steve Rosenthal, two former 
        Department of Labor political appointees.
           Jennifer O'Conner, former White House staff 
        member.
           William Cuff, former CEO of Diamond Walnut 
        Growers, Inc.
           Donald Morgan, a Vice President of the Segal 
        Company.
           Sherman Sass, formerly with the Segal 
        Company.
           Stephen Leser, a partner in Grant Thornton, 
        LLP.
           Kevin Madden, Susan Vowell, Heather Leach, 
        and Rebecca Lundgen, current or former Grant Thornton 
        employees.

How it happened: oversight weaknesses

    Evaluating the effectiveness of the federal investment in 
overseeing the 1996 Teamsters election was one of the 
Subcommittee's major goals. The Department of Justice exercised 
its option for a supervised election on February 7, 1995, which 
ultimately cost $18 million. The Subcommittee focused on how 
this money was spent.
    First, the Subcommittee sought to account for the millions 
of tax dollars spent to oversee the election of officers at a 
private organization. The Subcommittee's concerns included 
unexplained costs, excessive salaries, and unacceptable delays 
in auditing these expenditures. For example, Ms. Quindel earned 
more than $1 million in fees for slightly more than two years 
of work as Election Officer. On several occasions, the 
Subcommittee requested and received further information from 
the Department of Justice regarding these costs and audits. The 
Department of Justice did not initiate audits of the costs 
incurred in the 1996 or 1997 fiscal years until May 1998, 
despite repeated inquiries and encouragement by the 
Subcommittee over the previous six months. The Department of 
Justice provided the results of these audits to the 
Subcommittee when they were completed in September 1998. 
According to audits of the Election Office's expenditures, 
supervision cost the taxpayer $17,985,998 through September 30, 
1997.
    Second, the Subcommittee sought to determine whether the 
Office of the Election Officer applied the rules fully and 
fairly throughout the election process. The Subcommittee first 
wrote to Ms. Quindel on June 24, 1997, to express its concern 
about news reports of possible conflicts of interest, the 
fundraising improprieties, and other complaints it had received 
regarding the conduct of the election. During the 
Subcommittee's October 14, 1997 hearing on these subjects, 
employees of the union's international headquarters testified 
that they campaigned for IBT General President Ron Carey on 
union time and were pressured to make campaign contributions to 
Carey. Another employee at IBT headquarters testified that the 
IBT contributions to get-out-the-vote organizations in 1996 
were unusual both in size and in the procedures used to approve 
them. When questioned during the October 15, 1997 hearing about 
these matters, Ms. Quindel testified that it was not possible 
for the Election Office to detect Carey's fundraising schemes 
prior to the election, as the events occurred at the last 
minute.
    The Independent Review Board has also been a subject of the 
Subcommittee's scrutiny. The primary responsibility of the IRB 
has been to eliminate organized crime influence within the IBT 
and its local unions. In an oversight hearing on July 30, 1998, 
the administrator, chief investigator, and members of the 
Independent Review Board testified regarding the IRB's 
authority, investigative techniques, disciplinary procedures, 
and criticisms that it had not been impartial in some cases. 
The Subcommittee also heard testimony regarding the role and 
activities of the Independent Administrator and Investigations 
Officer. The Subcommittee reviewed the recommendations of the 
Independent Administrator for ways to improve the IBT's 
internal governance, including the institution of a formal 
budget, a financial procedures manual, and an office of 
Inspector General. The Subcommittee remains concerned that 
these recommendations have not been implemented.
    The Subcommittee also monitored the performance of the 
Independent Financial Auditor (IFA), a position created by an 
``Interim Agreement'' in the wake of the Election Officer's 
decision to disqualify Carey from the rerun election. The 
``Interim Agreement,'' entered into by the IBT and the U.S. 
Attorney for the Southern District of New York, states: 
``Independent Financial Auditor shall have the authority to 
review any expenditure or proposed expenditure of IBT funds or 
transfer of IBT property and to review any proposed contract 
entered into on behalf of the IBT (other than a collective 
bargaining agreement) and to veto any such expenditure, 
transfer or contract whenever the Independent Financial Auditor 
reasonably believes that such expenditures, transfer or 
contract would constitute or further an unlawful act or 
violation of the IBT Constitution or would otherwise constitute 
or further fraud or abuse of IBT funds or property.'' In the 
Subcommittee's oversight hearing on April 29, 1998, however, 
the IFA testified that his office does not conduct 
investigations, but merely reviews disbursements on the basis 
of documentation provided by the Teamsters. Furthermore, the 
IFA also does not review the Teamsters' legal expenses or 
pension funds, the business purpose behind IBT transactions, or 
the adequacy of the IBT's internal controls. It is clear that 
the services rendered by the IFA measure far short of those 
envisioned in the Interim Agreement.
    Finally, the Subcommittee examined the activities of two 
offices within the Department of Labor: the Office of Labor-
Management Standards (OLMS) and the Pension and Welfare 
Benefits Agency (PWBA). Both of these offices have oversight 
responsibilities related to the Teamsters union, but took few 
steps to monitor the union. During its oversight hearing on 
June 16, 1998, the Subcommittee heard testimony from five 
officials of the Department of Labor. The Subcommittee received 
substantial cooperation from the Department prior to the 
hearing through interviews of key personnel and document 
reviews.
    OLMS is responsible for receiving and auditing annual 
financial disclosure forms filed by labor organizations, for 
monitoring the use of trusteeships by national labor 
organization over their affiliates, and for reviewing 
complaints related to the election of union officers. 
Unfortunately, OLMS had not done a full audit of the IBT's 
financial report (the LM-2 Form) within the last 15 years under 
the International Compliance Audit Program (I-CAP) until it 
began one in October 1998 at the request of Chairman Hoekstra 
and Ranking Minority Member Mink. The Subcommittee questioned 
OLMS witnesses about auditing procedures and inaccuracies and 
deficiencies in the IBT's LM-2 Form, particularly with regard 
to accurate reporting of employee travel costs and other 
reimbursements.
    PWBA's mission, generally speaking, is to protect the 
pension and health benefits of participants in employee benefit 
plans in the private sector. The PWBA receives annual financial 
reports from private pension plans and audits these reports to 
detect investment weaknesses or funding shortfalls. In the 
Subcommittee's oversight hearing, PWBA witnesses were 
questioned about technical advice they provided to the 
Independent Administrator regarding payments from the Teamsters 
to pension plans under IBT control in 1991, as well as the 
effects of changes made by the IBT to actuarial data for their 
pension funds and the possible consequences of those changes. 
Around the time of the hearing, the Pension and Welfare 
Benefits Agency began an IBT pension plan also under 
Subcommittee investigation.

Mismanagement and malfeasance by IBT officials

    The Subcommittee began its investigation after revelations 
that senior Teamsters officials and IBT consultants organized, 
in the words of the Election Officer, ``a complex network of 
schemes to funnel employer and IBT funds into the Carey 
Campaign.'' Mindful of the criminal investigation of these 
schemes, the Subcommittee has taken pains to tailor its 
investigation in a way that preserves the efficacy of the 
parallel criminal inquiry. Hence this investigation focused on 
such areas as abuse of IBT resources for campaign purposes, 
questionable political activities, efforts to use the 
Teamsters' political strength to charm favors from the Clinton 
administration,manipulation of an IBT pension fund, the 
possibly inappropriate use of an emergency assessment on IBT locals, 
the union's internal financial procedures and governance, and possible 
misuse of the union's Ethical Practices Committee. A summary of some of 
these matters follows.
            Fundraising schemes and misuse of union resources
    Several of the Subcommittee's hearings have focused on the 
illegal fundraising schemes. In a hearing on October 14, 1997, 
a former supervisor at the IBT's Political Action Committee 
detailed the IBT's internal financial procedures as they 
related to the fundraising schemes. In a hearing on April 30, 
1998, John Sweeney, the President of the AFL-CIO, testified 
regarding the labor federation's role in the fundraising 
schemes. The AFL-CIO's Secretary-Treasurer, Richard Trumka, was 
allegedly responsible for the AFL-CIO's participation in the 
fundraising swap among the IBT, Citizen Action, and the Carey 
campaign. But Trumka declined to appear before the 
Subcommittee, citing his Fifth Amendment privilege against 
self-incrimination. Despite this, Sweeney testified that he 
does not believe Trumka has done anything improper and that he 
is not investigating the matter further. On May 19, 1998, the 
IBT's General Secretary-Treasurer and acting President, Tom 
Sever, testified about his knowledge of the contribution swaps 
and the IBT's check-handling procedures. The Subcommittee's 
depositions of IBT financial personnel have addressed their 
knowledge of these schemes, to the extent that they could do so 
without compromising the Justice Department's criminal inquiry.
    In addition, information obtained by the Subcommittee 
indicates that dozens of employees of the union's international 
headquarters may have campaigned for the Carey slate on union 
time. This abuse of power may have cost the union's treasury 
thousands of dollars in salaries and expenses. The Subcommittee 
heard testimony from four IBT employees on this subject in its 
hearing on October 14, 1997. Two IBT organizers testified that 
they had campaigned on Carey's behalf on union time at the 
direction of their supervisor. These organizers and an IBT 
International Representative testified that they were pressured 
to donate to the Carey campaign and that they did so, out of 
fear of losing their jobs. Another rank-and-file member of the 
IBT testified that he had been beaten by Carey supporters for 
trying to speak in a meeting of his local union. Moreover, a 
memorandum written by Carey's campaign manager indicates that 
at least thirty IBT employees were involved in using union 
resources for the Carey campaign. The Subcommittee questioned 
the current Election Officer about his investigation of these 
allegations in hearings on April 29, 1998 and September 29, 
1998. In a Subcommittee hearing on May 19, 1998, Sever 
testified that he is not investigating IBT employees who 
allegedly misused union resources. Further, the Subcommittee 
discussed this matter with the members of the IRB on July 30, 
1998.
            Questionable political expenditures
    There are serious questions regarding the union's 
expenditures in national and State politics. First, of course, 
are the efforts to raise money for Carey's re-election campaign 
by promising larger than expected soft money contributions to 
the DNC and State Democrat parties. Second, evidence indicates 
that the IBT may have made soft-money political contributions 
that were earmarked for specific congressional races. Under 
federal law, unions may not make expenditures designed to 
influence national elections from their general treasuries, and 
must instead use PAC funds; hence, earmarking is illegal. 
Moreover, the unions' accountants appear to have either ignored 
or covered up these potential violations of the law. In the 
Subcommittee's hearing on June 15, 1998, Stephen Leser, a 
partner in the Teamsters' accounting firm, Grant Thornton, LLP, 
testified that he was not aware of a subordinate's memorandum 
discussing IBT general treasury expenditures for election 
activity or discussions of whether the IBT should remove such 
information from its files. Subcommittee depositions of current 
and former Grant Thornton personnel have included questions 
regarding this memorandum.
            Improper ties to the Clinton administration
    Another subject under investigation is the Clinton 
administration's efforts--specifically, the White House, the 
United States Trade Representative, the Labor Department, and 
the Agriculture Department--to help to settle a Teamsters' 
strike against Diamond Walnut Growers, Inc. The 
administration's pressure on the company involved implicit 
threats to exclude walnuts from trade talks involving the 
European Union, to remove company products from the School 
Lunch Program, and to revoke payments to the firm under an 
initiative marketing U.S. agricultural products overseas. It 
also involved attempts to bar the firm from receiving any 
federal contracts.
    Information obtained and developed by the Subcommittee 
indicates that the Clinton Administration's efforts to help the 
Teamsters with their strike of Diamond Walnut may have been 
motivated by the promise of generous IBT political 
contributions. A high-level Labor Department appointee, 
possibly acting at the instruction of a senior White House 
official, wrote a memo before the 1996 elections telling 
presidential advisors how much money the Teamsters had 
contributed to Democrat Party coffers in 1992. The memo tells 
White House aides that the President needed the Teamsters' 
support during his re-election campaign, and that the Teamsters 
needed White House help settling a strike of Diamond Walnut. 
Around the time this memo was written, the administration 
brought pressure to bear on Diamond Walnut. After the Clinton 
administration's exertions, the Teamsters contributed millions 
to the coffers of Democrat senatorial and congressional 
campaigns, as well as State Democrat parties. An analysis done 
by Subcommittee staff indicates that the Teamsters contributed 
some $1 million to the national and State Democrat parties, and 
another $2.5 million to Democrat candidates across the country 
during the 1996 election cycle.
            Financial manipulation
    The Subcommittee is probing a number of events and 
transactions related to the union's net worth, pension funds 
managed by IBT officials, and an emergency dues assessment that 
began in 1994. In an attempt to finance its spending priorities 
in the face of an annual budget deficit, the IBT conducted a 
mail referendum in 1994 to increase dues by 25%. When this 
measure was rejected overwhelmingly by the Teamsters 
membership, the IBT looked for other sources of revenue to 
finance its agenda. To begin with, the IBT Constitution 
requires all IBT locals to pay an additional $1 per member per 
month emergency tax to the International when the IBT's net 
worth falls below $20 million. The increase expires when the 
union's net worth climbs back to $25 million. The provision was 
triggered in May 1994 and, since then, has brought an 
additional $17 million per year into the union's treasury. 
Despite the ramped-uprevenues, IBT officials have continued to 
spend more than they took in each year, even with the emergency 
assessment funds, thereby preventing the ``emergency'' increase from 
expiring. These financial machinations occurred at the same time as 
questionable changes to an IBT pension plan, raising questions about 
the motivation for these steps.
    The IBT made a number of changes to pension plans under its 
control as part of its efforts toward financial reorganization. 
The most drastic step was the curtailment of, or freeze of 
contributions to, the Teamsters Affiliates Pension Plan (TAPP), 
which provides benefits to the officers and employees of many 
local unions. When the IBT froze this pension plan, it retained 
its financial obligation to the plan, which has had a large 
impact on the net worth of the union, and, in turn, on the 
emergency assessment. By instituting a freeze instead of 
terminating the plan outright, the IBT retained a multi-million 
dollar liability on its balance sheet, a liability that will 
likely never be paid.
    In addition, the IBT made changes to the pension plan's 
discount rate--evidently without performing calculations that 
would typically accompany this action--that, in effect, allowed 
the union to continue its emergency tax and at the same time 
avoid insolvency. Had the discount rate remained the same as in 
previous years (7\1/4\%), the union would have been insolvent 
on its books. However, by changing the discount rate to 8%, the 
IBT's net worth remained between $0 and the $25 million 
threshold at which the emergency dues assessment would have 
expired. Then, in 1995, after the emergency assessment had been 
secured, the IBT returned the pension plan's discount rate to 
7\1/4\%, again without explanation. Most importantly, this 
change was not reported in the pension plan's annual financial 
statement, a problem that has generated a PWBA investigation.
    Those financial maneuvers have been the subject of 
Subcommittee hearings on March 26, June 15, and June 16, 1998, 
and have been discussed in depth in many of the depositions 
taken by the Subcommittee. First, on March 26, 1998, the 
Secretary-Treasurer of an IBT local testified that he believed 
the IBT leadership's decision to freeze contributions to the 
Teamsters Affiliates Pension Plan was designed to continue the 
emergency dues assessment and to gather additional financial 
resources for IBT headquarters. On June 15, 1998, A. Donald 
Morgan, a partner in the Teamsters' actuarial firm, the Segal 
Company, testified about a conference call between the Segal 
Company, IBT officers, and TAPP trustees, during which it 
became clear that IBT officials were concerned about the 
discount rate's impact on the IBT's emergency assessment. On 
June 16, 1998, witnesses from the PWBA discussed the actuarial 
and financial effects of these changes and answered questions 
about the PWBA's oversight procedures and investigations.
            Union governance
    A related matter that has received the Subcommittee's 
attention is a series of reports issued by the Independent 
Administrator at the end of his term in 1992. The reports 
recommended several changes to improve the financial controls 
and governance of the Teamsters. Among the key suggestions were 
the creation of an Inspector General's office at the IBT, the 
formation of a policies and procedures manual, and the 
establishment of an organization-wide budget. Under Carey, the 
international did not adopt a formal budget; instead, the IBT 
had a ``spending plan'' that was honored in the breach. 
Although Carey and IBT General Secretary-Treasurer Tom Sever 
commissioned studies and made reports on possible spending 
cuts, the union's spending spiraled upward while the union's 
net worth plummeted.
    Another governance matter that received Subcommittee 
scrutiny was the relationship among the union's international 
officers, particularly regarding budget matters. Because of the 
failure to share financial information among officers, the 
union essentially lacked any internal oversight of the IBT's 
fiscal management. First, Carey and Sever refused to provide 
IBT Vice Presidents (who were members of the GEB) with access 
to information regarding legal bills and services, credit card 
reimbursements to other officers, payments regarding the 
Detroit newspapers strike, and other matters. Second, when the 
International Trustees, who are required to audit the union's 
books every six months, began to question the union's financial 
situation, the board excluded them from meetings and denied 
them access to financial records and personnel. At the 
Subcommittee's hearing on March 26, 1998, a former 
International Trustee testified that, after the trustees had 
discovered improper expenditures and accounting discrepancies, 
IBT officials refused to provide them with financial 
information necessary to perform their constitutionally-
mandated biennial audit. They were also unable to interview IBT 
employees about the union's financial practices and were barred 
from GEB meetings.
    Finally, the Subcommittee is looking into IBT's use of 
internal disciplinary procedures. The Teamsters created an 
Ethical Practices Committee (EPC) to punish union members and 
officials for violations of the IBT Constitution. Since 1992, 
the IBT has placed approximately seventy local unions into 
trusteeship. The Subcommittee received numerous complaints that 
EPC investigations and hearings and the union's trusteeship 
proceedings were aimed at political opponents. Subcommittee 
depositions and public hearings on March 26 and July 24, 1998 
delved into these matters. On March 26, 1998, a former 
International Vice President testified that the Carey 
administration used the disciplinary process, the abolition and 
creation of subordinate union bodies, and the emergency dues 
assessment to centralize power at the international level. On 
July 24, 1998, Aaron Belk, a Teamsters Vice President, 
testified before the Subcommittee regarding his tenure as the 
Administrator of the Ethical Practices Committee and raised 
additional questions about Carey's use of the EPC.

Monitoring the rerun election

    The Subcommittee's third goal was to provide oversight to 
ensure that the rerun election is conducted fairly and that the 
oversight failures of 1996 are not repeated. To this end, the 
Subcommittee consulted frequently with the Election Officer, 
made its views known to Judge Edelstein and the Department of 
Justice, and discussed the rerun procedures in several public 
hearings. On April 29, 1998, the Election Officer discussed his 
original plan for overseeing the rerun election. The plan will 
be more proactive than oversight of the 1996 election, and will 
include placing monitors in campaign offices during the final 
weeks of the campaign. The focus of the Subcommittee's hearing 
on May 19, 1998 was to determine who was responsible for 
funding oversight of the rerun election. The Subcommittee heard 
testimony from Tom Sever, the Department of Justice, and the 
General Accounting Office. Ultimately, an agreement was reached 
to fund oversight of the rerun election without additional 
Congressional approrpriations. The Subcommittee held a public 
hearing and again heard testimony from Mr. Cherkasky on 
September 29, 1998, after Judge Edelstein approved the Election 
Officer's revised oversight plan, budget, and schedule. Ballots 
for the rerun are scheduled to be mailed on November 2, 1998 
and are due back to the Election Office by December 3, 1998.

Hearings held: Teamsters investigation

            105th Congress, First Session
    October 14, 1997--Oversight hearing on the 1996 IBT 
Election.
    October 15, 1997--Oversight hearing on the 1996 IBT 
Election.
            105th Congress, Second Session
    March 26, 1998--Oversight hearing on the financial affairs 
of the IBT.
    April 29, 1998--Oversight hearing on the supervision of the 
IBT by the Election Officer and Independent Financial Auditor.
    April 30, 1998--Oversight hearing on the role of AFL-CIO 
officers and employees in the failed IBT election.
    May 19, 1998--Oversight hearing on who should pay for the 
IBT rerun election.
    June 16-17, 1998--Oversight hearing on IBT financial 
practices and pension fund changes and the IBT's disclosure 
reports filed with the Department of Labor.
    July 24,1998--Oversight hearing on IBT governance and 
management practices.
    July 30, 1998--Oversight hearing on the role and 
performance of the Independent Review Board.
    September 29, 1998--Oversight hearing on plans for 
conducting the IBT rerun election.
    October 6, 1998--Oversight hearing on the Clinton 
Administration's efforts to settle the Teamsters' strike at 
Diamond Walnut Growers, Inc.

               B. American Worker at a Crossroads Project

Introduction

    During the 105th Congress, the Subcommittee on Oversight 
and Investigations (Subcommittee), chaired by Representative 
Pete Hoekstra, increased congressional oversight of federal 
programs by studying the impact of federal workplace agencies, 
programs, and laws on the American worker. On July 8, 1997, the 
Committee on House Oversight approved disbursement of money 
from the Reserve Fund for a project entitled the ``American 
Worker at a Crossroads Project'' (AWP). This project was 
directed to study workplace factors that enhance or impede 
development of an environment in which the American worker can 
be the most productive and enjoy the highest standard of living 
of any worker in the world. The AWP was charged with making 
legislative recommendations intended to make labor laws 
relevant to tomorrow's workplaces.
    More particularly, the AWP examined agency submissions 
under the newly implemented Government Performance and Results 
Act and focused on programs that have had minimal Congressional 
review in terms of impact on employees and employers. This 
investigation included a review of the U.S. Department of 
Labor, its programs, activities, and spending habits as well as 
other agencies that administer federal workforce laws. These 
inquiries were consistent with the AWP's mandate.
    The central focus of the project was to:
    Examine the current state of the American workplace:
          1. Investigate innovative workplaces and initiatives 
        that enhance the American workplace and serve as models 
        for change;
          2. Study federal workplace policies that negatively 
        affect both the American worker and the workplace; and
          3. Identify changes that would enhance the work 
        environment, and make recommendations and suggestions 
        for change to current American labor law in order to 
        promote a workplace which provides Americans with 
        security and flexibility during their working years and 
        in retirement and offers a fair return on American 
        taxpayer money.
    The following sections of the report detail the activities 
of the AWP as it relates to the oversight activities of the 
Subcommittee in accordance with the four specific goals listed 
above. While several of the oversight activities of the AWP, 
the Subcommittee, and the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce could easily fall under more than one category, this 
report places each activity according to its primary objective.

Summary of activities

            State of the American workplace
    During the 105th Congress, the AWP conducted research to 
analyze the history of American labor law and its relationship 
to the American workplace today, as well as to analyze trends 
in nine major U.S. industries. This research was conducted to 
fulfill one of the major functions of the AWP, namely, to 
examine the current state of the American workplace. 
Accordingly, set forth below is a summary of the project's 
findings, along with projections where appropriate.

1. History of the American Worker and U.S. Labor Law

    The American worker has always been the economic engine 
that has driven this nation. From the very earliest of times, 
men and women came to North American shores ready to roll up 
their sleeves and compete in an arena that afforded them 
freedom of endeavor. In these early years of the American 
workplace, competition was free and unrestricted but with time 
came civilization's restrictions that provided critical 
protections but, in many instances, also encumbered the 
American workers' promise of an ability to compete freely. It 
was not until the restrictions placed on the American worker by 
the British parliament that economic change was sought. The 
laissez-faire doctrine and Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations were 
hallmarks of thought in these early times.
    The newly independent and free American workers toiled 
primarily on farms but also on waterways, in shops and in 
fledgling factories that sprung up along the coasts. 
``Independence'' and ``freedom'' were the words of the day and 
they echoed in the halls of government, churches, and places of 
work.
    Federal government restraints on the free market, for the 
most part, came into being as the 19th and 20th century 
American economy dramatically shifted from agriculture to 
manufacturing. The economy and American society, alike, changed 
radically as a result of this economic change. This is the 
period of our most accelerated population growth. Immigrants 
entered the eastern seaboard port cities, especially New York 
City, and consequently fueled the labor intensive industrial 
age with a much needed labor pool. The landmark 1911 Triangle 
Shirtwaist Company fire and deplorable working conditions for 
these vulnerable new laborers gave birth to state workplace 
monitoring commissions across the nation. These monitoring 
entities sought to curb the unlimited power of the robber 
barons and thereby improve the conditions of American workers 
and the American workplace. Ultimately these conditions brought 
about the establishment of the U.S. Department of Labor in 
1913. The early years of the industrialization of the American 
economy can be characterized as an era in which employees 
sought organization as a means to correct grave injustices in 
the workplace.
    The latter nineteenth and early twentieth century witnessed 
a number of significant developments in labor-management 
legislation that initially rejected earlier notions of criminal 
conspiracy and later encouraged the growth of unions. Beginning 
at the midway mark in the twentieth century, legislation began 
to curtail union expansion of power over the workplace.
    The Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1 et 
seq.) and the Clayton Act of 1914 (15 U.S.C. Sec. 12 et seq.), 
though intended to check the growth of big business such as 
Standard Oil Co., ultimately were used to restrict the growth 
of unions. The Railway Labor Act of 1926(45 U.S.C. Sec. 151 et 
seq.) restricted the railroad's ability to interfere with an 
individual's right to organize or collectively bargain. It provided for 
the National Mediation Board and the Investigative Board, and is still 
the basis for bargaining in the air and rail industries today.
    Some of the greatest federally initiated changes in the 
American workplace and free market occurred in the 1930's as a 
result of the dramatic growth in size and scope of the federal 
government. Due in part to the measures taken by President 
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, ostensibly to combat the effects of 
the worldwide Great Depression, the courts and the Congress 
supported the administration's move to the pro-union camp.
    The union-sympathetic Anti Injunction Act of 1932 (26 
U.S.C. Sec. 7421) and the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 
(29 U.S.C. Sec. 151 et seq.) were hallmark pieces of labor-
management legislation enacted during the Depression that 
sought to redress various slights to the labor movement, such 
as prohibiting organizing under earlier anti-trust legislation 
like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1 et seq.).
    Following the Depression and World War II, most of these 
would be temporary measures were left in place and the American 
economy steamed forward in a burst of post-war economic vigor. 
At the mid-point of the century, Congress began enacting 
legislation that limited the influence of unions in the 
workplace.
    The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 (29 U.S.C. Sec. 141 et seq.), 
that came about in large part because of the public's distrust 
of organized labor at that time, was followed twelve years 
later by the Landrum-Griffin Act of 1959 (29 U.S.C. Sec. 401, 
et seq.), that sought to rectify undemocratic activity and 
fiscal irresponsibility in many unions. It guaranteed union 
members a ``Bill of Rights'' and established reporting 
requirements and restricted secondary boycotts.
    Although there have been no major changes in labor-
management laws since Landrum-Griffin in 1959, there has been 
social legislation--the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 
Sec. 2000a et seq.), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act 
(29 U.S.C.A. Sec. 621 et seq.), the Americans with Disabilities 
Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.), and the Occupational Safety 
and Health Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. 651 et seq.)--that has had 
significant impact on the workplace in the last thirty years.

2. State of the American Worker

            a. Nine key U.S. industries and how they have changed since 
                    the 1930's
    The effect of the technological revolution and the global 
competition it has spawned is best measured by tracing the 
history of industries of which the economy is composed. Due to 
the U.S. government's classification of the U.S. economy by 
industry, one can measure the changes in the past fifty years 
or so.
            Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing
     In 1938, Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing 
employed nearly 22% of the workforce.
     In 1997, just under 3% of the workforce were 
employed by the industry.
     In 1947, the industry accounted for 8.5% of the 
Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
     In 1996, it accounted for only 1.7% of the 
nation's productive output.
     In 1935, there were 6.8 million farms in America.
     In 1998, there were 1.9 million farms in America.
     In 1950, 12.2% of the population lived on farms.
     In 1998, only 1.9% lived on farms.
     Number of farms in 1998 that use:
          1. Computers--83.8%
          2. Cellular phones--73.2%
          3. Fax machines--41.9%
          4. The Internet--32.2%
     In 1950, corn yielded 50 bushels per acre. Farmers 
worked 10-14 hours to produce 100 bushels of corn with tractor, 
3-bottom plow, disk, harrow, 4-row, planter, and 2-row picker.
     Currently, corn yields 100 bushels per acre. 
Farmers work 2 hours to produce 100 bushels using a tractor, 5-
bottom plow, 25-foot tandem disk, planter, 25-foot herbicide 
applicator, 15-foot self-propelled combine and trucks.

Automotive

     In 1939, the motor vehicles and equipment industry 
employed 1.2% of the workforce.
     In 1998, it employed 0.8% of the workforce.
     In 1938, employees in the motor vehicles and 
equipment industry averaged earnings of $33.89 per week.
     In 1997, they earned an average of $865 per week.
     In 1934, the average tax on gasoline was one cent.
     In 1996, the average tax on gasoline was 18.3 
cents.
     In 1941, 85% of public rural roads were unpaved.
     In 1995, 48% of public rural roads were unpaved.
     In 1941, 52% of public urban roads were unpaved.
     In 1995, 4% of public urban roads were unpaved.
     In 1950, there were over 49 million vehicles 
registered in the U.S.
     In 1996, there were over 229 million vehicles 
registered.
     Innovations introduced in 1938 included electric 
turn signals, sliding sunroofs, and steering-column gearshifts.
     The latest innovations include the Global 
Positioning System Locator to navigate a vehicle's direction, 
automobiles that automatically maintain a safe distance from 
vehicles ahead, and seat cushions that sense the weight 
distribution of the driver or passenger and quickly adjust the 
shape of as many as eight internal cushions, with built-in 
seatbelt attachments and side airbags.

Banking

     In 1939, employees in the finance, insurance, and 
real estate industries accounted for 3.2% of the workforce.
     In 1998, they accounted for 5.8%.
     In 1947, the industry contributed 9.8% of the 
nation's GDP.
     In 1996, it contributed 19% of the GDP.
     In 1938, there were 72 bank mergers.
     In 1996, there were 473.
     In 1938, there were 74 bank failures.
     In 1996, there were five.
     In 1938, there were 150 FDIC-insured commercial 
banks.
     In 1997, there were 9,215.
     In 1997, 17% of purchases were made via the 
Internet and PC software.
     In 1998, 30% of purchases will be made 
electronically.
     In 2000, it is anticipated $7.3 billion will be 
spent online.

Construction

     In 1938, 2.4% of the workforce were employed in 
the construction industry.
     In 1998, 4.4% were construction employees.
     In 1947, the industry accounted for .37% of the 
GDP.
     In 1996, it accounted for 4%.
     In 1978, the cost of a median priced home was 
$55,700.
     In 1996, a median priced home cost $140,000.
     In 1976, half of all American families could 
afford a median-priced home.
     In 1996, slightly over \1/3\ could.
     In 1975, 46% of single-family homes included air 
conditioners.
     In 1996, 81% of homes had air conditioners.
     New homes consume half as much energy as homes 
built prior to 1980.
     In 1970, there were 52 fire deaths per million 
housing units.
     Between 1981-86, there were only 9.
     Technology has led to the control or elimination 
of asbestos, lead, and radon gas in homes over the last 20 
years.

Energy

     Prior to the 1950's coal and wood consisted of the 
majority of household energy consumption.
     Currently, most homes use natural gas and 
electricity.
     20 new cars today are needed to produce the 
tailpipe pollution of one new car in the 1960's.
     Homes built between 1988-93 use \1/5\ less energy 
than homes built before 1980.
     Fuels made from fast-growing trees, shrubs, and 
grasses may replace oil.
     Energy crops are being converted into liquid fuels 
to power vehicles on U.S. roads.
     U.S. production of ethanol, mainly from corn, is 
approaching 1.5 billion gallons per year.
     Ethanol-blended fuels represent 12% of fuel sales 
in the U.S.
     Hydrogen is anticipated to join electricity as the 
foundation for a globally sustainable energy system using 
renewable energy.
     Potential energy uses for hydrogen: powering non-
polluting vehicles, heating homes and offices and fueling 
aircraft.

Manufacturing

     In 1939, 23.8% of the workforce was employed by 
the manufacturing industry.
     In 1998, 15.2% were in manufacturing.
     In 1947, manufacturing accounted for 27.1% of the 
GDP.
     In 1996, it accounted for 17.4%.
     Increase in overall productivity in manufacturing 
since 1960: 285%
     Increase in overall productivity for private non-
farm economy since 1960: 188%
     Technology has aided manufacturing in numerous 
ways:
          1. Engineers can develop new products on computer 
        screens and transmit plans directly to the factory 
        floor for production.
          2. Statistical quality control reduces defect rates.
          3. Just-in-time inventory control leads to more 
        efficient deliveries and minimizes inventory control.
     Data suggests that in comparison with non-
exporters, plants that export grow jobs 18% faster, are 10% 
less likely to go out of business, pay on average 15% more, and 
provide benefits that are 40% higher--this is largely due to at 
least 20% greater productivity at exporting plants.

Mining

     In 1938, the mining industry employed 2% of the 
workforce.
     In 1998, the industry employed .46% of the 
workforce.
     In 1947, the industry contributed to 2.8% of the 
GDP.
     In 1996, the industry accounted for 1.5%.
     Percent of land touched in U.S. by mining: Less 
than \1/4\ of 1%.
     Decline in sulfur dioxide emissions since 1973: 
28%.
     Amount of coal combustion by-products recycled and 
used in cement production, road construction and roofing each 
year as of 1996: 21 million tons.

Steel

     In 1947, the fabricated metal products and primary 
metal industries employed 4% of the workforce.
     In 1998, the industries employed 1.8% of the 
workforce.
     In 1947, the steel industry accounted for 4% of 
the GDP.
     In 1996, the steel industry accounted for 2%.
     In 1982, it took 10.1 man-hours per finished ton.
     In 1996, it took 3.9 man-hours per finished ton.
     If the Sears Tower were built today instead of 
1974, it could be built with 35% less steel.
     There has been a 20% decrease in vehicle weight 
since 1978.
     Steel is 30% stronger compared to a decade ago.
     Steel is 30% cheaper than in 1984, when adjusted 
for inflation.
     The steel industry has reduced energy use by 30% 
annually in the past decade.
     Steel recycling saves enough energy to 
electrically power \1/5\ of U.S. households for one year.

Textile

     In 1939, the textile mill products, and apparel 
and other textile products industries accounted for 4.7% of 
total employment.
     In 1998, the industries accounted for 1.1% of 
employment.
     In 1947, textile industries accounted for 3.3% of 
the GDP.
     In 1996, the industries accounted for .68% of the 
GDP.
     In 1900, cotton yielded 120 pounds per acre.
     In 1996, cotton yielded 600 pounds per acre.
            b. Trends of the Future
    In Workforce 2020, the Hudson Institute proposed public 
policy options for the future based on projections of 
anticipated changes in the workforce. It is always best to have 
an idea of what the future will look like before crafting 
public policy for the future. Recognizing this, the Census 
Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics often make population and 
labor force projections for the future. The Hudson Institute 
analyzed the projections and identified key trends of the 21st 
century workforce.
            Growing elderly population
    The first major trend to have profound implications on 
American society will be the explosion of the elderly 
population (age 65 and over) by the middle of the next century. 
Following are a few demographic trends to expect over the next 
fifty years:
     Until 2010, the elderly population is projected to 
grow more slowly than ever before in U.S. history. From 1990 to 
2010, it will only increase 1.3% annually, a decrease from the 
average annual growth of 2.3% from 1950 to 1990.
     After 2010, the elderly population will increase 
dramatically from representing 13.2% in 2010 to 20% in 2030, an 
increase of 30 million elderly people. Most of this expected 
increase is attributable to the survivors of the Baby Boom 
generation reaching 65 and over. In 1995, there were 4.1 times 
as many people between ages 25 and 64 as there were over 65. By 
2030, there will only be 2.3 times as many.
     Increases are expected in the elderly population 
after 2030, with all of the increase due to longer life 
expectancy. In 1995, 3.6 million people were projected to be 85 
years and over. By 2050, 18.2 million people are expected to be 
over 85. In 1995, nearly 21 out of every 100 people were over 
64. By 2050, 36 out of 100 are people expected to be 65 and 
over.
    A growing number of elderly people as a percentage of the 
population will have innumerable social and economic 
consequences for the future. Public policy decisions on matters 
of Social Security and Medicare must take into account the 
anticipated explosion of the elderly population. Policy makers 
must decide how to encourage the active participation and 
acceptance of the elderly in the workforce. There are several 
reasons for this:
    Retired people usually depend on society more than the 
working elderly do.
     Employers need to view the elderly as valuable 
resources. Elderly people should be judged on merit, not on 
age, which can be an artificial factor in judging ability.
     Although people will be living longer, there will 
be a decline in the birth rate. A growing elderly population 
could help diminish the loss of productivity from a declining 
population growth rate. An increase in national productivity 
means higher living standards for everyone.
            Diversity in the workplace
    The American workforce is also likely to become more 
racially and ethnically diverse in the future.
     In 1986, the white non-Hispanic share of the 
workforce was 80%. In 2006, it is expected to be 73%.
     In 1986, the Hispanic share of the workforce was 
7%. In 2006, it is expected to be 12%.
     In 1986, Asians, Pacific Islanders, American 
Indians, and Alaska Natives accounted for 3% of the workforce. 
In 2006, they will account for nearly 5.5% of the workforce.
    More diversity in the workplace will bring many benefits as 
well as challenges. To comply with equal opportunity laws, many 
employers will have to be innovative in their recruiting 
efforts. Linguistic and other cultural barriers will also 
present difficulties and opportunities.
            Population growth
    Another significant trend likely to impact American society 
in the next century is the annual population and labor force 
growth rate.
     Between 1986-96, the labor force grew at an annual 
rate of 2.1%. Between 1996-2006, the rate is expected to 
decline to 1.1% annually.
     The labor force rate will decline primarily due to 
a decrease in annual growth of population expected to hover 
around .8% between 1996-2006.
     More women, immigrants and minorities are expected 
to enter the workforce, keeping the labor force rate above the 
population growth rate.
     The population is expected to enter the next 
century growing at its slowest rate since the 1930's.
    The anticipated decline in labor force growth over previous 
years will have profound implications on the productive output 
of the United States. As mentioned earlier, a constant influx 
of immigrants and greater labor force participation by the 
growing elderly population can minimize the effects of a slow 
population growth rate. A more efficient workforce, one that 
can operate in a climate of innovation and flexibility without 
excessive government interference, will also increase 
productivity.
            Rapid technological change
    The Technological Revolution continues to change almost 
every facet of American society. The microchip, the driving 
force behind a computer, is expected to hold 125 million 
transistors before the beginning of the next century, up from 
65 thousand in the late 1970s. Moore's Law, the concept that 
chip density will double every eighteen months, is as good as 
it gets in predicting the future of The Technological 
Revolution. It is a future that is unpredictable and almost 
unknown with the single exception that change will occur more 
rapidly than most Americans could possibly anticipate.
    Currently the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Media 
Laboratory is working on 195 different projects, which include 
the following:
     Personalized ID tokens: Tired of having to 
remember twenty passwords in order to access everything from 
your computer to your bank account? MIT has designed a plastic 
token the size of a poker chip bearing an individual's name and 
image.
     Wearable computers: Fabric sensors, threads that 
conduct a charge, make it possible to wear a keypad, 
microprocessor, and two speakers capable of playing 32 
different synthesized instruments or voices. Weighing only four 
pounds total, these computer components can be cleverly 
disguised in one's clothing.
     LEGO robots: Children 11 and up this Christmas 
will be able to design and program real robots to move, act and 
think on their own. The typical robot will be smaller than a 
shoe box, capable of moving across a room to pick up a soda 
can, and returning to its original starting point. Children 
will use their home computers to write a code of instructions 
for the robot which can then be downloaded onto a RCX 
microcomputer encased in a LEGO brick about the size of a pack 
of cigarettes. The microcomputer is the brain that runs the 
robot, a robot that can be built from 700 LEGO pieces.
     Personal health monitoring: Currently in the early 
stages, this invention consists of a four-pound pack to be worn 
while participating in marathons and mountain climbing. The 
pack transmits information via the Internet to a lab that logs 
the information. Just as a black box records the activities of 
an airplane, MIT is working on turning the four-pound pack into 
a wristwatch capable of measuring pulse, respiration, 
temperature, heartbeat, and other vital health data of an 
individual participating in physical activity.
            Technology and the global marketplace
    Technological advances have left no segment of the American 
economy untouched. In particular, telecommunications and 
transportation costs have declined dramatically due to the 
ability of these two industries to provide faster, cheaper 
service. The rise of the Internet and other telecommunications 
technologies has reduced the costs of communicating. As a 
result, telecommunications has reduced transportation costs in 
three important ways:
     It has reduced time and operating costs for 
helping ships and aircraft navigate more efficiently.
     Precise information on the location of goods and 
materials obtained through telecommunications will reduce 
transport, storage, and handling costs.
     Many service industries and functions (data entry, 
financial management, software programming, etc.) requiring 
little direct interaction between workers and customers will be 
able to supply customers all over the world.
    The reduction in transportation costs has and will continue 
to create more global competition for American workers in a 
variety of industries. Some of the implications of lower 
transportation costs for American workers include:
     Unskilled American workers are likely to face 
increasing competition from goods produced in other countries 
due to cheaper labor costs and reductions in transportation 
costs. (American unskilled textile workers earn nearly five 
times as much, on average, as their counterparts in other 
countries.)
     However, technological changes and cheaper 
telecommunications costs will enable America's high-tech, high-
wage workers to supply goods and services to consumers all 
around the world, increasing the amount of such jobs available 
in this country.
     Low-skill workers in developing countries are 
expected to increase their purchasing power as the goods they 
produce are sold to an expanding market of consumers. This will 
create a greater consumer market for American business.

3. Hearing on the Future of Work in America

    On October 29, 1997, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations conducted a hearing on the future of work in 
America in order for Members to learn the mission of the 
American Worker at a Crossroads Project and Chairman Hoekstra's 
vision for the AWP. Testifying at the hearing were Senator 
William Brock, former Secretary of Labor; Edward Montgomery, 
Chief Economist for the U.S. Department of Labor; Carol D'Amico 
and Alan Reynolds, Senior Fellows at the Hudson Institute; 
Thomas Malone, Founder and Director for the MIT Center for 
Coordination Science; Jared Bernstein, Economist for the 
Economist Policy Institute; and Dennis Lambka, Chairman of the 
Simplified Employment Services.
    Chairman Hoekstra summarized the goals of the AWP, 
including a brief history of labor legislation in the U.S. and 
the impact those laws are having on industry today. The 
witnesses testifying supported the claim that the American 
workforce is undergoing dramatic transformations. The testimony 
also supported the claims that the federal government will not 
beready to meet the workplace challenges of the 21st century, 
and that the American workforce will need to improve its educational 
skills.

4. Hearing on the Effects and the Enforcement of Industrial-Age Labor 
        Laws on American Workers in the Information Age

    On April 28, 1998, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigation conducted a hearing on the effects and the 
enforcement of industrial-age labor laws on American workers in 
the information age. Testifying at the hearing were Patrick 
O'Hara, Vice President of Human Resources and Facilities for 
Fluke Corporation; Dwayne Samples, CPA for Samples, Leduc, and 
Hulsey, LLC; Richard Ashmore, owner of Ashmore Brothers Inc.; 
Bernard Hays, Program Manager for Cannon Research Center 
America; and Eileen Appelbaum, Associate Research Director for 
the Economic Policy Institute.
    The hearing investigated both the ways in which small and 
large businesses are adjusting to the shift from the industrial 
age to the information age. Testimony by witnesses stressed 
frustration with current labor law and its impeding effect on 
American workplaces, and the need for less regulation in the 
workplace.
            Innovative workplaces
    During the 105th Congress, the AWP conducted a series of 
roundtables, site visits, hearings, and interviews involving 
numerous workplaces around the country deemed to be 
``innovative.'' These programs and agencies were examined in an 
effort to fulfill one of the major functions of the AWP, 
namely, to investigate innovative workplaces and initiatives 
that enhance the American workplace and serve as models for 
change. Discussions included exploration of the future changes 
to affect the workforce and what needs to be done to prepare 
for these changes. Participants discussed informally the 
following topics: (1) current innovative workplace practices; 
(2) emerging trends and issues in each industry and the 
ramifications for the American workforce; (3) the effect of 
federal regulations, programs, and laws on the American 
workplace; and (4) an overview of the future American 
workplace. Corporate, academic, and union representatives 
participated in Roundtable discussions regarding the future of 
work in America, exploring both the future changes expected to 
affect the American workforce as well as what needs to be done 
to prepare for these changes.
    Below is a brief analysis of the Roundtables and related 
activities, along with summarized findings where appropriate.

1. Seattle, Washington and Silicon Valley, California Roundtable 
        Discussions

    On December 10, 11, and 12, the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce's American Worker at a Crossroads Project held 
the first and second of a series of Roundtable discussions and 
site visits in Seattle, WA and Silicon Valley, CA. These events 
initiated the AWP's outreach across the nation, soliciting 
input from individual Americans on how they view their jobs, 
their companies, and the workplace in general.
    The AWP participants included Chairman Pete Hoekstra, 
majority committee staff members, minority staff counsel, and 
representatives of the U.S. Secretary of Labor. They met with a 
broad spectrum of the workplace, including more than 80 
corporate executives, union and non-union workers, and 
educators.
            a. Sectors of the Maritime Industry, Seattle, WA
    On December 10, 1997, eleven representatives of the various 
sectors of the maritime industry met with Chairman Hoekstra and 
staff. The focus of the discussion was twofold: to learn about 
the current status of this industry and to hear first-hand 
suggestions from the various sectors on how to improve the 
workplace in this declining industry. Issues discussed included 
the following:
     The decline in the Seattle area's maritime 
industry;
     How the Jones Act (46 U.S.C.A. Sec. 688 et seq.) 
and foreign competition have been reducing the industry's size;
     The negative effect the Walsh-Healy Public 
Contracts Act (41 U.S.C. Sec. 35) has had on the industry's 
competitiveness;
     The concern over foreign competition for low-
paying, low skilled jobs; and
     The Maritime Alliance, an example of union and 
business working together towards a common goal for the 
industry.
            b. Construction Industry Training Council (CITC), Bellevue, 
                    WA
    On December 10, 1997, eleven representatives of the 
Construction Industry Training Council and its affiliated 
sponsors and support staff met with Chairman Hoekstra and 
staff. The focus of the discussion was to learn about CITC's 
innovative, open-shop construction apprenticeship program and 
the problems associated with maintaining such a program in the 
state of Washington. Issues discussed included the following:
     The success that students have had with CITC after 
having been unable to succeed in other programs;
     The difficulties CITC has had in surviving legal 
battles to remain one of the few open shop apprentice programs 
in the state; and
     The concern over the discriminatory system in 
place for approving the apprenticeship programs.
            c. Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA
    On December 11, 1997, fourteen representatives from various 
high-technology industries met with Chairman Hoekstra and staff 
at the Microsoft Corporation campus. The focus of the 
discussion was what education is needed to prepare workers, 
what federal laws are hindering the workplace, and what needs 
to be done to create high paying, high quality jobs. Issues 
discussed included the following:
     The increased demand for high-technology 
employees;
     The necessity of high-technology education; and
     The effect of temporary employees on the 
workplace.
    Chairman Hoekstra and the staff also heard from five 
Microsoft Corporation representatives on various recruiting and 
educational programs. Issues discussed included the following:
     Microsoft's innovative recruiting services for 
high-tech workers;
     The Skills 2000 program, the company's career 
track program for college students;
     The mid-career training which Microsoft offers to 
prepare new workers;
     The company's involvement with community colleges; 
and
     Microsoft's philanthropic interests and 
involvement.
            d. King County Waste Water Management Plant, Seattle, WA
    On December 11, 1997, six union employees and managers of 
the King County Waste Water Management Plant met with Chairman 
Hoekstra and staff. The focus of the discussion was the 
innovative labor-management working environment in this union 
plant. Issues discussed included the following:
     Employee involvement in all phases of improving 
the company's business;
     The inclusion of a peer review system; and
     The company's gain-sharing plan for employees.
            e. American Electronics Association, Santa Clara, CA
    On December 12, 1997, twenty-five representatives from 
various high technology industries met with Chairman Hoekstra 
and staff at a roundtable hosted by the American Electronics 
Association. The focus of the discussion was the changing 
American workplace and its requirements for remaining 
competitive, as well as the effect of various federal laws on 
that workplace. Issues discussed included the following:
     The transfer from manufacturing to service 
industry jobs in the American workplace;
     The effect of telecommuting on the workforce;
     The movement from full-time employment to 
temporary and contract work;
     The need for an increase in the cap for H1-B visas 
(subsequently enacted as P.L. 105-277; this program establishes 
rules for and a cap on the entrance of visitation workers who 
enter the country to cover the high-tech industry); and
     The need for flexibility in the workplace to 
ensure high paying, high quality American jobs.
    Additionally, Michaela Platzer, senior writer and 
researcher for Cybernation, presented a lecture on the high-
technology industry in Silicon Valley via video conferencing 
from Washington, DC.
            f. Mission College, Santa Clara, CA
    On December 12, 1997, the administration and faculty of 
Mission College met with Chairman Hoekstra and staff. The focus 
of the discussion was the successful development of education 
programs between the community college in Silicon Valley and 
the area's high-technology companies. Issues discussed included 
the following:
     The partnership between the business community and 
the school, which has resulted in meaningful education 
opportunities for students wishing to succeed in a high-tech 
career; and
     The college's ongoing effort to educate the public 
about the high-tech training available.
            g. 3Com Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
    On December 12, 1997, six executives and workers of the 
3Com Corporation met with Chairman Hoekstra and staff. The 
focus of the discussion was the difficulties this innovative, 
high technology company in Silicon Valley has experienced with 
labor laws. Issues discussed included the following:
     The difficulty in classifying and defining exempt 
versus non-exempt employees and the need for revision of the 
Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. 201);
     The rapid pace of the high-tech industries and the 
emergence of the ``web year''; and
     How local and global competition creates an 
insecure work environment requiring diversification.

2. Dallas and Houston, Texas and Atlanta, Georgia Roundtable 
        Discussions

    On January 12, 13, and 20, the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce's American Worker at a Crossroads Project held 
its third, fourth, and fifth in a series of roundtable 
discussions and site visits in Texas and Georgia.
    The AWP participants included Chairman Hoekstra, majority 
committee staff members, minority staff counsel, and a 
representative from the Secretary of Labor's office. They met 
with a broad spectrum of the workplace, including more than 100 
corporate executives, union and non-union workers, outside 
groups, constituents and educators. Additionally, Rep. Joe 
Barton (R-TX) attended the event hosted by Intel Corporation in 
Fort Worth, TX; Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA) attended the event 
hosted by IBM in Atlanta, GA; and Rep. Robert Scott (D-VA) 
attended all sessions in Atlanta, GA.
            a. GTE Service Corporation, Irving, TX
    On January 12, 1998, nine representatives of GTE Service 
Corporation met with Chairman Hoekstra and staff. The focus of 
the discussion was to learn about the federal laws hindering 
theworkplace, the cost of compliance with the federal workplace 
laws, and the trends in the communications industry. Issues discussed 
included the following:
     The problem with drugs in the workplace;
     The need for elimination of restrictions on the 
use of flextime;
     How the intrusion of certain governmental 
regulations, such as the Employee Retirement Income Security 
Act [P.L. 92-261 (Mar. 24, 1972) 86 Stat. 103], effects the 
efficient use of independent contractors;
     Concerns with appropriate implementation of the 
Family Medical Leave Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. 2601 et seq.); and
     The problems associated with interpreting the 
Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.).
            b. Workforce Development Board, Irving, TX
    On January 12, 1998, four representatives of the Workforce 
Development Board met with Chairman Hoekstra and staff. The 
focus of the discussion was to learn about the federal laws 
hindering the workplace and the needs of Dallas area businesses 
and prospective employees. Issues discussed included the 
following:
     The complexity and lack of flexibility of federal 
grant programs;
     The overall need to address basic education and 
illiteracy;
     The necessity of workplace child care, and the 
importance of consideration of the 10-14-year-old age group; 
and
     The success of the Texas Job Training 
Partnerships.
            c. Intel Corporation, Fort Worth, TX
    On January 12, 1998, eleven representatives of the semi-
conductor and high-technology industries and the Fort Worth 
Chamber of Commerce met with Chairman Hoekstra and staff at the 
Intel Corporation facility. The focus of the discussion was to 
learn of innovative practices in the workplace and federal 
impediments existing in recruiting and maintaining the 
workforce. Issues discussed included the following:
     The need for an increased cap on H1-B visas 
(subsequently enacted as P.L. 105-277; this program establishes 
rules for and a cap on the entrance of visitation workers who 
enter the country to cover the high-tech industry) legislation 
due to the shortage of technical workers in the U.S.;
     How the Team Act [H.R. 634, 105th Cong. (1997); S. 
295 RS, 105th Cong. (1997)] would result in improvements in 
productivity and job satisfaction;
     The need for improvement in basic education for 
American workers; and
     Different innovative approaches to business 
survival.
            d. Greater Houston Partnership, Houston, TX
    On January 13, 1998, eighteen representatives of the 
Greater Houston Partnership (an organization focusing on 
economic development and world trade) and Citizens for a Sound 
Economy met with Chairman Hoekstra and staff. The focus of the 
discussion was to learn of innovative practices in the 
workplace, federal impediments existing in recruiting and 
maintaining the workforce, cumbersome federal grant 
regulations, and employment of temporary workers. Issues 
discussed included the following:
     The increased use of a temporary workforce and the 
subsequent need for development of transportable benefits;
     The need for employees with basic skills; and
     The need for block grants and/or local control of 
job training monies.
     The lack of a clear and consistent U.S. Department 
of Labor regulation system;
     The fear that companies have of government 
agencies, even those that claim to be intervening to help;
     The increased use of contract employees in order 
to allow flexibility and higher wages;
     The growing problem with drugs and alcohol in the 
workplace; and
     The current tort system and its negative impact on 
businesses.
            e. Roswell, GA small business representatives
    On January 20, 1998, eight representatives of the small 
business and education communities met with Chairman Hoekstra 
and staff. The focus of the discussion was to learn about the 
federal laws hindering the small business workplace and the 
cost of compliance with the federal workplace laws. Issues 
discussed included the following:
     How federal regulations keep small businesses from 
being productive;
     How laws governing non-exempt employees and 
compensation time inhibit flexibility and harm employees' best 
interest;
     The difficulty involved in determining the 
government's definition of small business and which laws apply;
     The fact that current education systems do not 
prepare students adequately; and
     The emergence and implications of an older 
workforce beginning in 2015.
    Chairman Hoekstra and staff also heard from six 
representatives from the Roswell community on workplace 
disability issues. The focus of the discussion was to learn 
about the federal laws hindering the employment of persons with 
disabilities in the workplace. Issues discussed included the 
following:
     How Medicaid assistance creates a disincentive for 
persons with disabilities to find employment;
     The negative effect that income cliffs have on 
people who are working their way off Social Security Disability 
Income; and
     The need for technology to accommodate people with 
disabilities.
            f. Lockheed-Martin Aeronautical Systems, Marietta, GA
    On January 20, 1998, sixteen union and management 
representatives from Lockheed-Martin Aeronautical Systems met 
with Chairman Hoekstra and staff. Discussion focused on issues 
concerning the workplace, such as:
           The difficulty in determining the 
        classifications for exempt and non-exempt employees due 
        to regulations in the Family Medical Leave Act (29 
        U.S.C. Sec. 2601 et seq.);
           The importance of teamwork for a competitive 
        21st century; and
           The need to reinvent company structure.
            g. International Business Machines Corporation (IBM), 
                    Smyrna, GA
    On January 20, 1998, ten IBM representatives met with 
Chairman Hoekstra and staff. A tour of IBM's mega-center was 
conducted and the following issues were discussed:
           The efficiency of IBM's inside sales mega-
        center;
           How government regulations of non-exempt 
        employees are contrary to strategic development; and
           The positive effects that the Team Act [H.R. 
        634, 105th Cong. (1997); S. 295 RS, 105th Cong. (1997)] 
        would have on ensuring competitiveness.
            h. BellSouth Corporation, Atlanta, GA
    On January 20, 1998, seven representatives of BellSouth 
Corporation met with Chairman Hoekstra and staff. Issues 
discussed included the following:
           Concern that America's current educational 
        system is not preparing students for the workplace;
           Concern over the classification of 
        ``inside'' salesmen as non-exempt employees, and the 
        negative impact this has on their potential for 
        advancement and productivity; and
           Concern that the Family Medical Leave Act 
        (29 U.S.C. Sec. 2601 et seq.) has a negative impact on 
        the efficiency of the company.

3. Greenville, South Carolina Roundtable Discussions

    On February 17, 1998, the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce's American Worker Project held its sixth of a series 
of Roundtables and site visits, taking place in Greenville, SC.
    The AWP participants included Chairman Hoekstra, several 
majority staff members, the minority staff counsel, and a 
representative of the U.S. Secretary of Labor's office. They 
met with a broad spectrum of the workplace, including more than 
250 corporate executives, union and non-union workers, small 
business groups, constituents, and educators. Representative 
Lindsey Graham also attended the discussion.
            a. Fluor Daniel, Greenville, SC
    On February 17, 1998, eight Fluor Daniel craft-workers and 
eight Fluor Daniel operations department members met with 
Chairman Hoekstra and staff. The focus of the discussion was to 
learn about the construction industry, federal laws hindering 
Fluor Daniel's operation, and the cost of compliance with the 
federal workplace laws. Issues discussed included the 
following:
           The changing American workplace, 
        specifically the changing construction industry;
           The company's increase in and improvements 
        to safety measures;
           The need for a better relationship between 
        the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and 
        private industry;
           The concern over the political nature of the 
        National Labor Relations Board and its ineffectiveness; 
        and
           The company's training and education 
        programs which attempt to compensate for the lack of 
        skilled craftsmen.
            b. Perception Kayaks, Inc., Greenville, SC
    On February 17, 1998, thirteen workers from Perception 
Kayaks, Inc. met with Chairman Hoekstra and staff. The 
discussion centered around the uniqueness of this workplace, 
including:
           The fact that the company's success is based 
        on internal community spirit;
           The company's Voluntary Honor Code and its 
        contribution to company integrity;
           The on-the-job training program and its 
        contribution to success; and
           How the company's productivity plan enhanced 
        the worker/management relationship.
            c. Delta Woodside Co., Fountain Inn, SC
    On February 17, 1998, seventeen workers and managers of 
Delta Woodside Textile Company met with Chairman Hoekstra and 
staff. The focus of the discussion was to learn how to survive 
dramatic changes in the textile industry, including the 
following:
           The company's $60 million upgrade to stay 
        successful;
           How the change in business structure 
        improved respect and cooperation between management and 
        workers;
           The fact that the Occupational Safety and 
        Health Administration hinders effective company policy, 
        and fails to coordinate with businesses;
           Affirmative action regulations that are 
        cumbersome to the company and of no benefit to the U.S. 
        Department of Labor; and
           The company's practice of training workers 
        and managers together.
            d. Greenville, SC small and large business owners
    On February 17, 1998, seventeen small and large Greenville, 
SC area business owners met with Chairman Hoekstra and staff at 
the Greenville Chamber of Commerce. Issues discussed included 
the following:
           The need to evaluate the application of 
        onerous federal regulations;
           The employee and employer frustration with 
        the overtime regulations of the Fair Labor Standards 
        Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. 201) and its exclusion of a 
        compensation-time option;
           Concern over frivolous claims filed with the 
        Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the need 
        for better regulation of claims;
           Frustration with the Americans with 
        Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.) and its 
        conflicts with the Family Medical Leave Act (29 U.S.C. 
        Sec. 2601 et seq.);
           Concern over frivolous Occupational Safety 
        and Health Administration regulations; and
           The abuse of the Family Medical Leave Act 
        (29 U.S.C. Sec. 2601 et seq.) by employees and the 
        subsequent negative effect on companies.

4. Troy, Michigan Roundtable Discussions-

    On April 13 and 14, 1998, the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce's American Worker Project held its seventh of a 
series of Roundtables and site visits, taking place in Troy, 
MI.
    The AWP participants included Chairman Hoekstra, several 
majority staff members, the minority staff counsel, and a 
representative of the U.S. Secretary of Labor's office. They 
met with a variety of business leaders.
            a. United Solar Systems Corp., Troy, MI
    On April 13, 1998, four members of the Energy Conversion 
Devices, Inc. family of firms (which includes United Solar 
Systems Corporation) met with Chairman Hoekstra and staff. The 
focus of the discussion was to learn about the innovative 
technology and manufacturing fostered by these companies. 
Issues discussed included the following:
           The innovative overseas partnerships in 
        which these companies currently participate; and
           The high efficiency of the innovative 
        technology used in these companies.
            b. Troy, MI business leaders
    On April 13, 1998, representatives of Troy, Michigan's 
businesses met with Chairman Hoekstra and staff. The focus of 
the discussion was to learn about the experiences of 
businessmen and women in the Troy region. Issues discussed 
included the following:
           The need for fewer labor laws, due to the 
        expense of compliance;
           The frustration with contradictory laws;
           The need for crisper, clearer definition of 
        the issues addressed by the Equal Employment 
        Opportunity Commission;
           The frustration with minimum wage 
        requirements, and the view that the market should 
        determine the minimum wage; and
           The need for an increase in the H1-B visa 
        cap (subsequently enacted in P.L. 105-277; this program 
        establishes rules for and a cap on the entrance of 
        visitation workers who enter the country to cover the 
        high-tech industry).
            c. Chrysler Corporation, Auburn, MI
    On April 14, 1998, spokesmen of the Chrysler Corporation 
and representatives of automobile manufacturing human resources 
met with Chairman Hoekstra and staff. The focus of the 
discussion was to learn about the experiences of automobile 
manufacturing industry from the management's perspective. 
Issues discussed included the following:
           The importance of training for all employees 
        (including those in management) within the automobile 
        manufacturing workplace;
           The need for teamwork in the contemporary 
        work environment; and
           The effect of an aging workforce on the 
        automobile industry.

5. Hearing on the Emerging High-Tech Industry

    On April 23, 1998, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations conducted a hearing on the emerging high-tech 
industry. The purpose of the hearing was to learn about the 
significance of the high-tech industry to the U.S. economy and 
its effects on the present and future workplace. Testifying at 
the hearing were William T. Archey, President and CEO of the 
American Electronics Association; James Mitchell, Vice 
President of Human Resources for Texas Instruments; Rick 
Martino, Vice President of National Human Resources Operations 
for IBM; Rebecca Guerra, Vice President of Human Resources for 
Adobe Systems, Inc.; and Robert Lerman, Director of the Human 
Resources Policy Center for the Urban Institute.
    The witnesses testifying supported the claim that the 
present American workforce cannot meet the needs of the growing 
high-tech industry because of the lack of skilled workers. The 
witnesses also recommended the passage of the TEAM Act [H.R. 
634, 105th Cong. (1997); S. 295 RS, 105th Cong. (1997)] and 
raising or eliminating the H1-B visa cap (subsequently enacted 
in P.L. 105-277; this program establishes rules for and a cap 
on the entrance of visitation workers who enter the country to 
cover the high-tech industry) in order to alleviate the 
shortage of qualified high-tech workers.

6. Hearing on Innovative Workplaces for the Future

    On May 20, 1998, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations conducted a hearing on innovative workplaces for 
the future in order to learn about the innovative programs of 
some of America's most successful businesses. Testifying at the 
hearing were Mary Joyce, Senior Director of Compensation and 
Benefits for Enron; Beth Tilney, Senior Vice President for 
Advertising, Communicants, and Organization Development for 
Enron; Ben Houston, President and CEO for T.D. Industries; Mary 
Anne Walk, Vice President of Labor Relations and Human 
Resources for AT&T Conchita Robinson, Vice President of the 
U.S. Sales Centers for International Business Machines 
Corporation; Paul Rausch, President of Local 9231, United Steel 
Workers of America for I/N Tek I/N Kote; John Nielsen, Manager 
of Human Resources for I/N Tek I/N Kote; and David Sloan, 
General Manager of the Cotton Division for Delta Woodside.
    The witnesses testifying summarized their respective 
company's innovative approach to workplace problems and 
industrial labor law conflicts.

7. Hearing on Meeting the Needs of the 21st Century Workforce

    On June 24, 1998, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations conducted a hearing on meeting the needs of the 
21st century workforce in order to learn more about the 
changing needs of American workers. Testifying at the hearing 
were Honorable Stephen Goldsmith, Mayor of Indianapolis; Gerald 
W. McEntee, International President for the American Federation 
of State, County and Municipal Employees; C. William Pollard, 
Chairman of ServiceMaster Company; Max Sawicky, Economist for 
the Economic Policy Institute; Denny Harris, Executive Director 
of the Small Office Home Office Association; Robert Rzonca, 
Senior Vice President and Chief Personnel Officer for IPSCO, 
Inc.; Scott Shortridge, Maintenance Operator for IPSCO, Inc.; 
David Libby, Human Resources Manager for Champion Paper; Thomas 
Dougherty, President for United Paperworkers International 
Union Local 274; James J. Dowdall, Vice President of Labor 
Relations for Bell Atlantic; Kenneth Canfield, 
Telecommunications Technical Associate for Bell Atlantic; 
Elizabeth Jarrett, Principal for Public School 154, New York, 
NY; and Leroy Barr, Teacher for Public School 154, New York, 
NY.
    The testimony supported the theory that in the 21st century 
people and information technology will be two key resources for 
competitive advantage. Witnesses gave examples of innovative 
workplace policies that their respective company had 
implemented and stressed the changing needs in today's 
workplace.
            Federal workplace policies that impede the american worker: 
                    things that don't work
    During the 105th Congress, the AWP conducted a series of 
roundtables, site visits, hearings, interviews, and financial 
analyses involving the U.S. Department of Labor and its related 
programs and agencies. These programs and agencies were 
examined in an effort to fulfill one of the major functions of 
the project, namely, to study federal workplace policies that 
negatively effect both the American worker and the workplace. 
In other words, how has labor law impinged upon the American 
workplace and worker--how has it become outdated--and how does 
it not fulfill its mission of protecting the American worker? 
Accordingly, set forth below is a brief analysis of the AWP's 
activities, along with summarized related findings where 
appropriate.

1. U.S. Department of Labor

            a. Process Accountability
    (1) Hearing on Determining the Appropriateness of 
Rulemaking at the U.S. Department of Labor--Regulatory 
Strategies Outside the Scope of the Administrative Procedure 
Act.
    On May 8, 1998, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations conducted a hearing on determining the 
appropriateness of rulemaking at the U.S. Department of Labor, 
focusing on regulatory strategies outside the scope of the 
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. Sec. 551 et seq.). 
Testifying at the hearing were Marshall J. Breger, former 
Solicitor of Labor and current Professor of Law for Columbus 
School of Law at Catholic University; Charles Jeffress, 
Assistant Secretary of the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration for the U.S. Department of Labor; John Fraser, 
Acting Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division for the U.S. 
Department of Labor; Stanley W. Levy, Chairman of the Labor 
Committee for the California Fashion Association; and Baruch 
Fellner, Representative for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
    The hearing investigated the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration's process for choosing companies for 
participation in its compliance programs. It also focused on 
lists published by the U.S. Department of Labor to honor 
companies with exemplary practices. The lists were investigated 
because of concern over whether or not they were composed 
fairly.
    (2) Hearing on Evaluating Regulatory Practices at the U.S. 
Department of Labor.
    On June 19, 1998, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigation conducted a hearing evaluating regulatory 
practices at the U.S. Department of Labor. Testifying at the 
hearing were Ernest Gellhorn, Professor for George Mason 
University Law School; Ida Castro, Acting Director of Women's 
Bureau for the U.S. Department of Labor; and Suzanne Seiden, 
Acting Deputy Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division for 
the U.S. Department of Labor.
    The hearing focused on the procedures followed by the U.S. 
Department of Labor committee that selected companies for the 
Trendsetter List, as well as the procedures involved in 
selecting companies for the Working Women Count Honor Roll. 
Testimony by witnesses supported concern over the integrity of 
the Department of Labor process.
            b. Financial Accountability: Hearing on the U.S. Department 
                    of Labor: Financial Analysis and Management
    On September 28, 1998, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations conducted a hearing analyzing the financial 
management at the U.S. Department of Labor. Testifying at the 
hearing were James McMullen, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the 
Office for Administration and Management for the U.S. 
Department of Labor; Kenneth M. Bresnahan, Deputy Chief 
Financial Officer for the U.S. Department of Labor; Bryan T. 
Kielty, Administrator in the Office of Financial and 
Administrative Management of Employment and Training 
Administration for the U.S. Department of Labor; David C. 
Zeigler, Director of Administrative Programs of the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration for the U.S. 
Department of Labor; Patricia A. Dalton, Deputy Inspector 
General for the U.S. Department of Labor; and Carlotta C. 
Joyner, Director of Education and Employment Issues for the 
U.S. General Accounting Office.
    The hearing was a step toward understanding the financial 
structure of the U.S. Department of Labor (``Department''). 
While realizing what roles and what inter-departmental 
relationships exist within the Department, the Subcommittee 
learned how to achieve and receive reliable and accurate 
information. An overview of management and accountability 
issues was highlighted. The specific issues included the 
methodologies used by the Department in its financial 
accounting systems and internal tracking procedures for grant 
and contract management. Also,auditing procedures, bad debts, 
and a financially historical perspective on auditing financial accounts 
were highlighted.

2. Garment Industry

    The garment industry was chosen for investigation because 
it is a microcosm of the industrial workplace. The 
globalization of the marketplace, technological advances, and 
shifting demographics have had a major impact on the entire 
American workplace and on this industry in particular. By 
looking at this specific industry, then, one is able to more 
fully understand the issues facing the overall American 
workplace.
            a. Hearing on Workplace Competitiveness Issues
    On March 31, 1998, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations conducted a hearing on workplace competitive 
issues. Testifying at the hearing were the Representative 
Goodling, Chairman of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce; Peter Kwong, Director of Asian Studies for Hunter 
College; six confidential and protected workers from the 
garment industry in Chinatown, New York, NY; Robert Fitch, 
Free-lance writer for the Village Voice; and John R. Fraser, 
Acting Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division for the U.S. 
Department of Labor.
    The hearing focused on the abuse of garment workers in 
Chinatown, New York. Testimony by witnesses detailed the 
intolerable conditions of garment workers, as well as the 
inability of current labor laws to protect those workers.
            b. Hearing on the Failures and Promises of the California 
                    Garment Industry
    On May 18, 1998, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations conducted a hearing on the failures and promises 
of the California Garment Industry. Testifying at the hearing 
were Julie Su, Attorney for Asian Pacific American Legal 
Center; Enriqueta Soto, garment worker; Linda Klibanow, 
Attorney for Parker, Milliken, et. al.; Tauni Simo, Union of 
Needletrades, Industrial, and Textile Employees (UNITE) Member 
and Sorrento Coats employee; Marie Ramirez, UNITE member and 
Sorrento Coats employee; Petra De Leon, UNITE member and 
Sorrento Coats employee; Sang Yun Lee, former president of 
Goodtime Fashions, Inc. and Song of California Apparel Company, 
Inc.; Lonnie Kane, President of California Fashion Association 
and Karen Kane, Inc.; Richard Reinis, General Counsel for the 
Compliance Alliance; and Paul Gill, Senior Project Manager for 
Northern California Manufacturing Extension Partnership 
(Manex).
    The hearing was held in order to learn about California's 
anti-sweatshop efforts. This included successful techniques 
used in California to combat sweatshops such as voluntary 
monitoring programs. Testimony by witnesses detailed the 
condition of garment workers in California and the alleged 
abuses conducted by the garment union in that state.
            c. Hearing on the Rationale for and the Effect of the 
                    Garment Industry Proviso under Section 8(e) of the 
                    National Labor Relations Act
    On August 6, 1998, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations conducted a hearing on the rationale for and the 
effect of the Garment Industry Proviso under Section 8(e) of 
the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. 151 et seq.). 
Testifying at the hearing were John Dunlop of the Department of 
Economics for Harvard University; Ray Marshall, of the 
University of Texas LBJ School of Public Affairs; Jay Mazur, 
President of Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile 
Employees (UNITE); James Wimberly, Attorney for Wimberly & 
Lawson; Robert T. Thompson, Attorney for Thompson and Hutson; 
and Joel E. Cohen, Attorney for McDermott, Will & Emery.
    The purpose of the hearing was to assess the strengths, 
weaknesses, and success of the Garment Industry Proviso of the 
National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. 151 et seq.) and 
to evaluate whether the proviso, which exempts the garment 
unions for a particular provision of the law, has satisfied the 
congressional purpose upon which the exemption was premised. 
Testimony by witnesses emphasized that the Garment Industry 
Proviso is not well understood and has not been investigated by 
Congress in the past. Testimony also detailed the Proviso's 
failure to protect workers. Several witnesses, however, 
supported the continuation of the Proviso given the unique 
nature of the industry.
            d. Hearing on Regulatory Activities at the U.S. Department 
                    of Labor--Garment Industry Trendsetters
    On September 10, 1998, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations conducted a hearing on regulatory activities at 
the U.S. Department of Labor, focusing on the Garment Industry 
Trendsetter List. Testifying at the hearing were Suzanne B. 
Seiden, Acting Deputy Administrator of the Wage and Hour 
Division for the U.S. Department of Labor, and Andrew James 
Samet, Acting Deputy Undersecretary of the International Labor 
Affairs Bureau for the U.S. Department of Labor.
    The hearing revisited the issue of the Trendsetter list 
initiated by the U.S. Department of Labor and the integrity 
involved in the selection process of companies for the list. 
Testimony by witnesses supported the statement that the U.S. 
Department of Labor made decisions that had economic effects on 
companies without proper procedural protections required by the 
Administrative Procedure Act. As a result of this hearing, the 
U.S. Department of Labor discontinued the display of the 
Trendsetter List on its website.
            e. Hearing on the Role of Business in the Competitive 
                    Garment Industry
    On September 25, 1998, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations conducted a hearing on the role of business in 
the competitive garment industry. Testifying at the hearing 
were Honorable Catherine Nolan, Member of the New York State 
Legislature, and Larry Martin, President of the American 
Apparel Manufacturers Association.
    The focus of the hearing was to gather information on the 
global competitiveness of the U.S. garment industry. The 
hearing was held to enable jobs to remain in America by finding 
a way to help the garment industry compete through adopting 
policies that will improve thecountry's competitiveness. 
Testimony by witnesses supported the fact that the U.S. Department of 
Labor's methods for enforcing legislation relating to the garment 
industry has been ineffective in protecting workers from abuses. 
Witnesses differed in their opinions on the likelihood that a joint 
liability law would increase compliance with current labor law. 
Testimony also included a review of the American Apparel Manufacturers 
Association compliance program, which involves and goes beyond 
compliance to labor legislation relating to working conditions and 
which will be ready for implementation in 1999.

Hearings and field oversight conducted by the American worker at a 
        crossroads project

            105th Congress, First Session
    October 29, 1997--Oversight hearing on the future of work 
in America.
    December 10, 1997--Field visit to and roundtable discussion 
with various sectors of the maritime industry, in Seattle, 
Washington; site visit to the Fraser Boiler Company in Seattle, 
Washington.
    December 10, 1997--Field visit to and roundtable discussion 
with the Construction Industry Training Council (CITC), in 
Bellevue, Washington; site visit to the CITC facility in 
Bellevue, Washington.
    December 11, 1997--Field visit to and roundtable discussion 
with the Microsoft Corporation, in Redmond, WA; site visit to 
the Microsoft Corporation facility in Redmond, Washington.
    December 11, 1997--Field visit to and roundtable discussion 
with the King County Waste Water Management Plant, in Seattle, 
Washington.
    December 12, 1997--Field visit to and roundtable discussion 
with the American Electronics Association, in Santa Clara, 
California.
    December 12, 1997--Field visit to and roundtable discussion 
with the Mission College, in Santa Clara, California.
    December 12, 1997--Field visit to and roundtable discussion 
with 3Com Corporation, in Santa Clara, California.
            105th Congress, Second Session
    January 12, 1998--Field visit to and roundtable discussion 
with the GTE Service Corporation, in Irving, Texas.
    January 12, 1998--Field visit to and roundtable discussion 
with the Workforce Development Board, in Irving, Texas.
    January 12, 1998--Field visit to the Intel Corporation and 
roundtable discussion with representatives of the semi-
conductor and high-technology industries and members of the 
Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, in Fort Worth, Texas.
    January 13, 1998--Field visit to and roundtable discussion 
with the Greater Houston Partnership, in Houston, Texas.
    January 20, 1998--Field visit to Roswell, Georgia and 
roundtable discussion with representatives of small business 
and education communities in Roswell, Georgia.
    January 20, 1998--Field visit to and roundtable discussion 
with the Lockheed-Martin Aeronautical Systems, in Marietta, 
Georgia.
    January 20, 1998--Field visit to and roundtable discussion 
with the International Business Machines Corporation, in 
Smyrna, GA.
    January 20, 1998--Field visit to and roundtable discussion 
with the BellSouth Corporation, in Atlanta, Georgia.
    February 16, 1998--Field visit to Chinatown in New York 
City, New York, and discussion with representatives of garment 
industry workers.
    February 17, 1998--Field visit to and roundtable discussion 
with the Fluor Daniel Company, in Greenville, South Carolina.
    February 17, 1998--Field visit to and roundtable discussion 
with the Perception Kayaks, Inc. company, in Easley, South 
Carolina.
    February 17, 1998--Field visit to and roundtable discussion 
with the Delta Woodside Company, in Fountain Inn, South 
Carolina.
    February 17, 1998--Field visit to Greenville, South 
Carolina, and roundtable discussion with various small and 
large business owners in Greenville, South Carolina.
    March 18, 1998--Field visit to Chinatown in New York City, 
New York, and discussion with representatives of garment 
industry workers.
    March 24, 1998--Field visit to Chinatown in New York City, 
New York, and discussion with representatives of garment 
industry workers.
    March 30, 1998--Field visit to Chinatown in New York City, 
New York, and discussion with representatives of garment 
industry workers.
    March 31, 1998--Oversight hearing on workplace 
competitiveness issues.-
    April 13, 1998--Field visit to and roundtable discussion 
with United Solar Systems Corporation, in Troy, Michigan.
    April 13, 1998--Field visit to Troy, Michigan and 
roundtable discussion with business leaders in Troy, Michigan.
    April 13, 1998--Field visit to and roundtable discussion 
with Chrysler Corporation, in Auburn, Michigan.
    April 15-16, 1998--Field visit to Los Angeles, California 
and discussion with representatives of garment industry 
workers.
    April 23, 1998--Oversight hearing on the emerging high-tech 
industry.
    April 28, 1998--Oversight hearing on the effects and the 
enforcement of industrial age labor laws on American workers in 
the information age.
    May 8, 1998--Oversight hearing on determining the 
appropriateness of rulemaking at the U.S. Department of Labor, 
dealing with the regulatory strategies outside the scope of the 
Administrative Procedure Act.
    May 18, 1998--Oversight field hearing on the failures and 
promises of the California garment industry held in Los 
Angeles, California.
    May 20, 1998--Oversight hearing on innovative workplaces 
for the future.
    June 19, 1998--Oversight hearing on evaluating regulatory 
practices at the U.S. Department of Labor.
    June 24, 1998--Oversight hearing on meeting the needs of 
the 21st century workforce.
    August 6, 1998--Oversight hearing on the rationale for and 
the effect of the garment industry proviso under Section 8(e) 
of the National Labor Relations Act.
    September 9, 1998--Field visit to Detroit, Michigan, to 
give speech on ``The American Worker At A Crossroads Project'' 
to the Detroit Economic Club.
    September 10, 1998--Oversight hearing on regulatory 
activities at the U.S. Department of Labor.
    September 23-24, 1998--Field visit to Everett, Washington, 
and interviews with numerous union members.
    September 25, 1998--Oversight hearing on the role of 
business in the competitive garment industry.
    September 28, 1998--Oversight hearing on the financial 
analysis and management accountability of the U.S. Department 
of Labor.
    October 5, 1998--Discussion with various community leaders 
on the Americans with Disabilities Act and its effect on the 
workplace.
    October 21-23, 1998--Field visit to San Diego, California, 
to give presentation on ``The American Worker At A Crossroads 
Project.''

American worker at a crossroads project statistics

Total Number of Hearings..........................................    13
Field.............................................................     1
Joint with Other Committees.......................................     0
Total Number of Roundtable Discussions............................    30

                             MINORITY VIEWS

              Committee Activity Report, December 30, 1998

    An activity report is not a forum in which Committees make 
allegations and records conclusions reached by the Committee. 
An activity report is supposed to detail, in a bipartisan 
objective fashion, the work done by the Committee, including 
the hearings held, the witnesses called, the issues discussed, 
and the information received. The chapter concerning the 
Teamsters Investigation fails to detail the work of the 
Subcommittee. Instead, it asserts partisan and unsupported 
allegations that have largely been dispelled during the course 
of the Subcommittee's investigation. Perhaps the omission of a 
description of the hearings held and evidence received is due 
to the fact that, during the course of the Subcommittee's 
investigation, the Subcommittee received testimony and 
documents that were contrary to allegations raised by the 
Majority. Not only does the omission of testimony and evidence 
received by the Subcommittee result in a misleading portrayal 
of the investigation, it also results in a failure to identify 
the information that the activity report is supposed to 
disclose--the activities of the committee. Having spent 
millions of dollars on the Teamsters investigations, one would 
think that the Majority would account for their expenditures by 
detailing the work performed with this money.
    The Minority will not respond here to the substantive 
allegations raised in this activity report, but will reserve 
comment for an appropriate forum, the report of the 
investigation. When and if a final report of the investigation 
is released, a full discussion of the evidence and the Minority 
views thereon will be detailed.
    We also oppose the Majority's conclusion that we should not 
expand the Family and Medical Leave Act. Millions of Americans 
are currently unable to take unpaid leave to care for their 
sick parents or children. We also oppose the Majority's 
conclusion that we should reduce the Federal Government's 
commitment to public education. The public overwhelmingly 
supports greater Federal investment in education.
                                                   William L. Clay.

                                
