[House Report 106-1040]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                 Union Calendar No. 602
106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2nd Session                                                   106-1040
_______________________________________________________________________


                       REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES

                                 of the

                       COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND

                             THE WORKFORCE

                               during the

                             106th Congress




January 2, 2001.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
89-006                     WASHINGTON : 2001

                COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE

                       One Hundred Sixth Congress
                                 ------                                
              WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania, Chairman
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin           WILLIAM (BILL) CLAY, Missouri
MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey            GEORGE MILLER, California
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina       DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
BILL BARRETT, Nebraska               MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California 
JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio                    \2\
PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan             MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON,           DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
    California                       PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware          ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey
SAM JOHNSON, Texas                   TIM ROEMER, Indiana
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri            ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania     LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina    CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana                  Rico
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana           CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia             RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas
RON PAUL, Texas                      CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado               JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
FRED UPTON, Michigan                 RON KIND, Wisconsin
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia                 LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee              HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan           DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
MATT SALMON, Arizona                 DAVID WU, Oregon
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado         RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey
ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia \1\

----------
\1\ Appointed March 2, 1999.
\2\ Resigned September 13, 2000.
                         STANDING SUBCOMMITTEES

                                 ------                                

              Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations

                    JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri            ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin           DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey            DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina       CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 
WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania        Rico
HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON,           CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York
    California                       JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan             DAVID WU, Oregon
MATT SALMON, Arizona                 RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey
ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
                                 ------                                

                 Subcommittee on Workforce Protections

                CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina, Chairman
BILL BARRETT, Nebraska               MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan             GEORGE MILLER, California
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina    MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California 
RON PAUL, Texas                          \2\
SAM JOHNSON, Texas                   LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio                LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia \1\          DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
                                 ------                                

          Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families

                 MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware, Chairman
SAM JOHNSON, Texas                   DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana              GEORGE MILLER, California
RON PAUL, Texas                      DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania    PATSY J. MINK, Hawaii
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania     ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana           DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
FRED UPTON, Michigan                 LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee              CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin               Rico
MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey            CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio                RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina    CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado               LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
MATT SALMON, Arizona                 HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado         DAVID WU, Oregon
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
                                 ------                                

              Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

                   PETE HOEKSTRA, Michigan, Chairman
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia             TIM ROEMER, Indiana
VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee              ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado               RON KIND, Wisconsin
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado         HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky
                                 ------                                

    Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education, Training and Life-Long 
                                Learning

            HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, California, Chairman
WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania    MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California 
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin               \2\
BILL BARRETT, Nebraska               JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania     RON KIND, Wisconsin
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina    RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana           MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware          PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana              ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia                 TIM ROEMER, Indiana
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan           CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia \1\          RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas

----------
\1\ Appointed March 2, 1999.
\2\ Resigned September 13, 2000.
                         Letter of Transmittal

                              ----------                              

                      House of Representatives,    
                             Committee on Education
                                         and the Workforce,
                                   Washington, DC, January 2, 2001.
The Hon. Jeff Trandahl,
Clerk of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Trandahl: 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 106th 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.........................................     2
        A. Promoting Economic Growth and Strengthening Employee 
            Rights...............................................     2
            The FAIR Act--Attorney's Fee Legislation.............     2
            Worker Paycheck Fairness--The Beck Issue.............     2
            Clinton Administration's Proposed ``Blacklisting'' 
                Regulations......................................     3
        B. Examining the Collective Bargaining Process and its 
            Enforcement..........................................     4
            Collective Bargaining Rights for Doctors.............     4
        C. Reforming Labor Standards to Meet the Challenges of 
            Today's Workplace....................................     6
            Rewarding Performance in Compensation Act............     6
            The Family and Medical Leave Clarification Act.......     6
            Birth and Adoption Unemployment Compensation.........     9
            Clarifying the Overtime Exemption for Firefighters...     9
            The Minimum Wage.....................................    10
        D. Energy Employees Occupational Injury Compensation Act.    11
        E. Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 
            Education Act (ESEA).................................    12
            1. Family Literacy...................................    12
                Hearings on Family Literacy......................    12
                H.R. 3222, Literacy Involves Families Together 
                    Act (LIFT)...................................    13
            2. H.R. 1995, Teacher Empowerment Act................    13
            3. H.R. 2, Student Results Act.......................    13
                Hearings on Title I, Part A Education of the 
                    Disadvantaged................................    14
                Hearings on Comprehensive School Reform..........    15
                Hearings on Programs Assisting Migrant and 
                    Neglected and Delinquent Youth...............    15
                Hearings on Native American Education Programs...    15
                Hearings on Gifted and Talented and Homeless 
                    Education Programs...........................    15
                Hearings on Bilingual Education..................    15
                Title I, Part A Education of the Disadvantaged...    16
                Migrant Education................................    19
                Neglected and Delinquent Youth...................    19
                Comprehensive School Reform......................    19
                Magnet Schools Assistance Program................    20
                Women's Educational Equity.......................    20
                Teacher Liability................................    20
                Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native 
                    Education....................................    21
                Gifted and Talented Children.....................    21
                Rural Education Assistance.......................    22
                McKinney Homeless Education Improvements Act of 
                    1999.........................................    23
                Bilingual Education..............................    25
            4. H.R. 4141, Education OPTIONS Act..................    25
                State and Local Transferability..................    26
                Supporting Drug and Violence Prevention and 
                    Education for Students and Communities.......    28
                Tech for Success.................................    30
                Ready-to-Learn Television Program and the 
                    Telecommunications Demonstration Project.....    31
                Innovative Education Programs....................    32
                Fund for the Improvement of Education............    33
                Charter Schools..................................    34
                Civic Education..................................    34
                Ellender Fellowship Program (Close Up Foundation)    34
                General Provisions...............................    34
            5. H.R. 3616, the Impact Aid Reauthorization Act of 
                2000.............................................    35
                Hearings on Impact Aid...........................    35
                H.R. 3616, the Impact Aid Reauthorization Act of 
                    2000.........................................    35
        F. Education Reform......................................    36
            1. H.R. 800, Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 
                1999 (Ed-Flex)...................................    36
                Hearings on Education Flexibility................    36
            2. H.R. 2300, The Academic Achievement for All Act 
                (Straight A's)...................................    37
                Hearings on Flexibility, Accountability, and 
                    Results......................................    37
                H.R. 2300, the Academic Achievement for All Act 
                    (Straight A's)...............................    38
        G. Training..............................................    39
            1. H.R. 3073, the Fathers Count Act of 1999..........    39
            2. H.R. 3172, the Welfare-to-Work Amendments of 1999.    39
            3. H.R. 4216, the Portable Skills Training Act.......    40
            4. H.R. 4402, the Training and Education for American 
                Workers Act of 2000..............................    40
            5. H.R. 4678, the Child Support Distribution Act of 
                2000.............................................    41
        H. Special Education.....................................    42
            H.R. 4055, the IDEA Full Funding Act.................    42
        I. Appropriations Legislation............................    42
            H.R. 3424, FY 2000 Departments of Labor, Health and 
                Human Services, Education and Related Agencies 
                Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-113)................    42
                Higher Education.................................    42
                Class Size Reduction.............................    43
                Public School Choice.............................    44
        J. Other Initiatives.....................................    50
            1. H.R. 905, the Missing, Exploited, and Runaway 
                Children Protection Act..........................    50
            2. H.R. 1150, the Juvenile Crime Control and 
                Delinquency Prevention Act.......................    51
            3. H.R. 1248, the Violence Against Women Act of 2000.    52
            4. H.R. 2909, the Intercountry Adoption Act of 1999..    53
            5. H.R. 3614, Emergency Commodity Distribution Act of 
                2000.............................................    54
            6. H.R. 4520, Child Care and Adult Care Food Program 
                Integrity Act....................................    55
            7. H.R. 4178, the Kids 2000 Act......................    56
            8. H.R. 4542, To Designate the Washington Opera in 
                Washington D.C. as the National Opera............    56
            9. H.R. 4725, to amend the Zuni Land Conservation Act    56
            10. H.R. 5123, the School Safety Hotline Act.........    57
            11. S. 380, the Congressional Award Act Amendments of 
                1999.............................................    57
            12. S. 2789, Congressional Recognition for Excellence 
                in Arts Education Act............................    57
        K. Committee Resolutions.................................    58
            H. Con. Res. 76, child abuse and neglect concurrent 
                resolution.......................................    58
            H. Con. Res. 84, concurrent resolution on full 
                funding of the Individuals with Disabilities 
                Education Act (IDEA).............................    58
            H. Con. Res. 88, higher education funding concurrent 
                resolution.......................................    58
            H. Con. Res. 92, concurrent resolution on Columbine 
                High School in Littleton, Colorado...............    59
            H. Con. Res. 93, child abuse and neglect concurrent 
                resolution.......................................    59
            H. Con. Res. 107, concurrent resolution on a report 
                of the American Psychological Association........    59
            H. Con. Res. 191, the Brooklyn Museum of Art 
                concurrent resolution............................    59
            H. Con. Res. 194, concurrent resolution on the 
                contributions of 4-H clubs and their members to 
                voluntary community service......................    60
            H. Con. Res. 213, concurrent resolution on financial 
                literacy training................................    60
            H. Con. Res. 266, concurrent resolution on the 
                benefits of music education......................    61
            H. Con. Res. 288, concurrent resolution on families 
                and children.....................................    61
            H. Con. Res. 309, concurrent resolution on in-school 
                personal safety education programs...............    62
            H. Con. Res. 310, national charter schools week 
                concurrent resolution............................    62
            H. Con. Res. 343, concurrent resolution on families 
                eating together resolution.......................    62
            H. Con. Res. 366, concurrent resolution on the 
                importance and value of education in United 
                States history...................................    62
            H. Con. Res. 375, concurrent resolution on American 
                youth day........................................    63
            H. Con. Res. 399, concurrent resolution on the 25th 
                anniversary of the Individuals with Disabilities 
                Education Act (IDEA).............................    63
            H. Res. 157, resolution on teachers..................    64
            H. Res. 207, resolution on community renewal through 
                community and faith-based organizations..........    64
            H. Res. 280, resolution on strong marriages..........    64
            H. Res. 303, resolution on dollars to the classroom..    65
            H. Res. 409, resolution on Catholic schools..........    65
            H. Res. 456, resolution on the Arapahoe rescue patrol 
                of Littleton, Colorado...........................    65
            H. Res. 465, resolution on abandoned babies..........    65
            H. Res. 492, resolution on teachers..................    65
            H. Res. 509, African-American music resolution.......    66
            H. Res. 522, fatherhood resolution...................    66
            H. Res. 552, resolution on mentoring.................    66
            H. Res. 578, resolution on home schooling............    66
II. Hearings Held by the Committee...................................67
            106th Congress, First Session........................    67
            106th Congress, Second Session.......................    67
III.Markups Held by the Committee....................................68

            106th Congress, First Session........................    68
            106th Congress, Second Session.......................    69
IV. Legislative Activities...........................................69
        A. Legislation Enacted Into Law (Bills Referred To 
            Committee)...........................................    69
        B. Legislation Enacted Into Law (Bills Not Referred To 
            Committee)...........................................    70
        C. Legislation Passed the House (Bills Referred to 
            Committee)...........................................    71
        D. Legislation Passed The House In Another Measure.......    75
        E. Bills Not Referred To Committee That Passed The House 
            Containing Provisions Under The Committee's 
            Jurisdiction.........................................    77
        F. Legislation With Filed Reports........................    78
        G. Legislation Ordered Reported From Full Committee......    79
 V. Committee on Education and the Workforce Statistics..............81
Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations......................    81
 I. Summary of Activities............................................81
        A. Health Care Coverage and Retirement...................    81
            ERISA Health Insurance Reform........................    81
            Reform of the ERISA-based Pension System.............    83
            Retirement Security Legislation......................    85
            Church Employee Benefit Plans........................    86
            Employment Benefits Claims Regulations...............    87
        B. Promoting Greater Workplace Flexibility...............    88
            The Wealth Through the Workplace Act.................    88
        C. Promoting Economic Growth and Strengthening Employee 
            Rights...............................................    89
            The FAIR Act--Attorney's Fee Legislation.............    89
            Clinton Administration's Proposed ``Blacklisting'' 
                Regulations......................................    89
            The Truth in Employment Act--The ``Salting'' Issue...    90
            Union Democracy--Strengthening Rights of Rank-and-
                File Union Members...............................    91
                The DRUM Act.....................................    92
        D. Examining the Collective Bargaining Process and its 
            Enforcement..........................................    93
            Review of the National Labor Relations Board.........    93
            Collective Bargaining for Public Safety Officers.....    94
II. Hearings Held by the Subcommittee................................96
            106th Congress, First Session........................    96
            106th Congress, Second Session.......................    96
III.Markups Held by the Subcommittee.................................96

            106th Congress, First Session........................    96
            106th Congress, Second Session.......................    97
IV. Subcommittee Statistics..........................................97
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections............................    97
 I. Summary of Activities............................................97
        A. Reforming Labor Standards to Meet the Challenges of 
            Today's Workplace....................................    97
            Stock Options--Overtime..............................    97
            Addressing the Employment Needs of Amish Youth.......    99
            Application of the Fair Labor Standards Act to 
                ``Inside Sales'' Personnel.......................   100
            Rewarding Performance in Compensation Act............   102
            Clarifying the Overtime Exemption for Fire Fighters..   102
            The Fair Labor Standards Act and Volunteer Fire 
                Fighters.........................................   103
            White-Collar Exemptions in the Modern Work Place.....   104
            Boxing Reform........................................   104
        B. OSHA's Regulatory Agenda and Legislative Initiatives..   105
            OSHA Overview........................................   105
            Ergonomics...........................................   106
            Proposed Revisions to OSHA's Recordkeeping 
                Regulations......................................   108
            Safety and Health Audits and Whistleblower 
                Improvement Act..................................   109
            Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act and OSHA's 
                Bloodborne Pathogens Standard....................   109
            General Accounting Office Report Reviewing the 
                Coordination of Federal Agency Safety and Health 
                Programs.........................................   111
            General Accounting Office Report on DOL Enforcement 
                Actions at Companies Experiencing Labor Unrest...   112
        C. Mine Safety and Health Administration.................   112
        D. Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA) and the 
            Office of Worker's Compensation Programs (OWCP)......   113
II. Hearings Held by the Subcommittee...............................115
            106th Congress, First Session........................   115
            106th Congress, Second Session.......................   115
III.Markups Held by the Subcommittee................................116

            106th Congress, First Session........................   116
            106th Congress, Second Session.......................   116
IV. Subcommittee Statistics.........................................116
Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education..........................   116
 I. Summary of Activities...........................................116
        A. Higher Education Act..................................   116
            1. H.R. 4504, Higher Education Technical Amendments 
                of 2000..........................................   116
            2. H.R. 3629, Tribal College Amendment to the Higher 
                Education Act....................................   117
            3. H.R. 3210, College Scholarship Fraud Prevention 
                Act of 1999......................................   118
            4. H.R. 1180, Ticket to Work and Work Incentives 
                Improvement Act of 1999..........................   119
        B. Teacher Quality.......................................   119
            1. H.R. 1995, Teacher Empowerment Act................   119
                Hearings.........................................   120
                H.R. 1995, Teacher Empowerment Act...............   120
            2. H.R. 5034, The Quality Teacher Recruitment and 
                Retention Act of 2000............................   121
                Hearings.........................................   121
                H.R. 5034, The Quality Teacher Recruitment and 
                    Retention Act of 2000........................   122
        C. Older Americans Act...................................   122
            Hearings.............................................   122
            H.R. 782, the Older Americans Act Amendments.........   123
II. Hearings Held by the Subcommittee...............................123
            106th Congress, First Session........................   123
            106th Congress, Second Session.......................   124
III.Markups Held by the Subcommittee................................124

IV. Subcommittee Statistics.........................................124
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families..............   124
 I. Summary of Activities...........................................124
        A. H.R. 4875, the Scientifically Based Education 
            Research, Statistics, Evaluation, and Information Act 
            of 2000..............................................   124
            Hearings.............................................   125
            H.R. 4875, the Scientifically Based Education 
                Research, Statistics, Evaluation, and Information 
                Act of 2000......................................   125
        B. Environmental Education...............................   126
II. Hearings Held by the Subcommittee...............................127
            106th Congress, First Session........................   127
            106th Congress, Second Session.......................   128
III.Markups Held by the Subcommittee................................128

            106th Congress, First Session........................   128
            106th Congress, Second Session.......................   129
IV. Subcommittee Statistics.........................................129
Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations.......................   129
 I. Summary of Activities...........................................129
        A. Committee on Education and The Workforce Oversight 
            Plans for the 106th Congress.........................   129
        B. Education at a Crossroads Report: Bringing Excellence 
            to Education.........................................   130
            1. Background........................................   130
            2. What Works and What's Wasted in Federal Education 
                Programs.........................................   131
            3. Recommendations...................................   132
            4. Subcommittee Report...............................   133
        C. General Education Oversight Activities................   133
            1. Release of 1998 NAEP Reading Scores...............   133
            2. Study of Texas Achievement........................   134
            3. Redesigned Discretionary Grants Process...........   134
            4. Evaluation of Part A of Title I of the Elementary 
                and Secondary Education Act......................   135
            5. Government Performance and Results Act............   136
            6. Waste, Fraud and Abuse at ED......................   136
            7. AmeriCorps........................................   139
            8. National Endowment for the Arts...................   140
            9. OCR Testing Guidance..............................   141
        D. Occupational Safety and Health Related Oversight......   142
            1. Investigation of the Occupational Safety and 
                Health Administration's Use of Letters of 
                Interpretation to Implement Enforcement Policy 
                Changes: Enforcement Actions in the Personal 
                Residences of Employees Who Work at Home.........   142
                a. Background....................................   142
                b. OSHA's Document Production....................   145
                c. January 28, 2000 Hearing......................   146
                d. OSHA ``Instruction'' or ``Policy Directive'' 
                    on Home-Based Worksites......................   147
                e. Implementation of Management Change within 
                    OSHA to Institute Accountability in the 
                    Policy Review and Approval Process...........   148
            2. GAO Report on Occupational Safety and Health 
                Administration Inspections and Labor Unrest......   148
                a. Background....................................   148
                b. GAO Findings..................................   149
                c. Subcommittee Recommendations..................   149
            3. Investigation of Alleged Improper Judicial Conduct 
                at the Occupational Safety and Health Review 
                Commission.......................................   149
        E. Oversight of the Mine Safety and Health 
            Administration: Alleged Management Irregularities....   149
            1. Nepotism in Personnel Policy......................   149
            2. Inappropriate Contract Awards.....................   150
                a. Background....................................   150
                b. Investigation Raises Ethical Questions........   150
                c. Joint Investigation with the DOL IG...........   150
                d. Subcommittee Recommendations..................   151
        F. Investigation Into Use of Taxpayer Funds for 
            Questionable Official Travel by DOL Officials........   151
            1. Background........................................   151
            2. Unreasonable DOL Document Production..............   152
            3. Subcommittee Findings.............................   152
            4. Recommendation....................................   152
        G. Review of U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Labor 
            Management Standards, International Union Compliance 
            Program Review Procedures............................   152
            1. Background........................................   152
            2. Limitations of the I-CAP..........................   153
            3. The Importance of the I-CAP.......................   154
            4. Subcommittee Findings.............................   154
            5. Summary...........................................   155
        H. Office of Federal Procurement Policy's Proposed 
            ``Blacklisting'' Regulations.........................   156
        I. Oversight of the National Labor Relations Board.......   156
            1. Indian Gaming: Abrogation of Sovereignty to 
                Increase Organizing?.............................   156
                a. Background....................................   156
                b. Necessity of Oversight........................   156
                c. General Counsel's Response....................   157
                d. Subcommittee Analysis.........................   157
                e. Subcommittee Recommendations..................   158
            2. Delay in the Appellate Process....................   158
                a. Background....................................   158
                b. Necessity of Oversight........................   158
                c. NLRB Response.................................   158
                d. Subcommittee Recommendation...................   159
        J. Consultations with Agencies of Jurisdiction on 
            Submissions to Congress Under Government Performance 
            and Results Act......................................   159
            1. Background........................................   159
            2. Results Act Requirements..........................   159
            3. The Timetable for Implementation of the Act.......   160
            4. Subcommittee Findings During Consultation Process.   161
                a. Employment Standards Administration...........   161
                b. Oversight of National Labor Relations Board...   163
                c. Oversight of Equal Employment Opportunity 
                    Commission...................................   164
                d. Oversight of the Occupational Safety and 
                    Health Review Commission.....................   165
        K. Oversight Into Effect on Commerce of Federal Prison 
            Industries Program...................................   166
            1. General Information...............................   166
                a. Background: Jurisdictional Basis for Oversight   166
                b. Background: Inmate Work Programs..............   166
            2. Competition from Prison Industry Programs in 
                Interstate Commerce..............................   166
            3. FPI--Mandatory Source Status......................   167
            4. FPI--Preferential Status Regarding Contract 
                Performance......................................   167
            5. FPI--Unique Pricing Standard......................   168
            6. FPI--Incidents of Overpricing.....................   168
            7. FPI--Incidents of Late Deliveries.................   169
            8. FPI--Quality Problems.............................   169
        L. Investigation Into Growing Labor Shortages in U.S. 
            Workforce............................................   169
            1. Background........................................   169
            2. Hearing on the State of the Law...................   170
            3. Subcommittee Findings.............................   171
            4. Conclusion........................................   172
        M. The Role of ``Open Shops'' in the 21st Century 
            Workforce............................................   172
            1. Background........................................   172
            2. Hearing on the State of the Law...................   173
            3. Subcommittee Findings and Conclusion..............   173
II. Special Investigations of the Subcommittee......................173
        A. Investigation of the Financial, Operating and 
            Political Affairs of the International Brotherhood of 
            Teamsters............................................   173
            1. Background........................................   173
            2. Final Report Issued...............................   174
            3. Oversight of Rerun Election.......................   175
            4. Local 560 Case Study..............................   175
            5. Continued Oversight of International Brotherhood 
                of Teamsters.....................................   176
        B. American Worker Project...............................   176
            1. Summary...........................................   176
            2. Summary of Report.................................   177
                a. Trends of the Future..........................   177
            3. Recommendations of the American Worker Project....   179
                Making America the Most Effective Work 
                    Environment in the World--Seven Priorities...   179
            4. Hearings and Public Forums........................   180
III. Hearings Held by the Subcommittee..............................180

            106th Congress, First Session........................   180
            106th Congress, Second Session.......................   181
IV. Markups Held by the Subcommittee................................182
            106th Congress, First Session........................   182
 V. Subcommittee Statistics.........................................182
Minority Views...................................................   183
                              INTRODUCTION

    The Rules of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
for the 106th Congress provide for the referral of all matters 
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 the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is as follows:

                                 RULE X

         Establishment and Jurisdiction of Standing Committees


                 the committees and their jurisdiction


    There shall be in the House the following standing 
committees, each of which shall have the jurisdiction and 
related functions assigned by [clause 1] and clause 2, 3, and 
4. All bills, resolutions, and other matters relating to 
subjects within the jurisdiction of the standing committees 
listed in this clause shall be referred to those committees, in 
accordance with clause 2 of rule XII, as follows:

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (g) Committee on Education and the Workforce.
          (1) Child labor.
          (2) Gallaudet University and Howard University and 
        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) Education or labor generally.
          (7) Mediation and arbitration of labor disputes.
          (8) Regulation or prevention of importation of 
        foreign laborers under contract.
          (9) Workers' compensation.
          (10) Vocational rehabilitation.
          (11) Wages and hours of labor.
          (12) Welfare of miners.
          (13) Work incentive programs.
    In addition of its legislative jurisdiction under the 
preceding provisions of this paragraph (and its general 
oversight function under clause 2(b)(1)), the committee shall 
have special oversight function provided for in clause 3(d) 
with respect to domestic educational programs and institutions, 
and programs of student assistance within the jurisdiction of 
other committees.
                                                 Union Calendar No. 602
106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2nd Session                                                   106-1040

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



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

                                _______
                                

January 2, 2001.--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 654 bills and resolutions were referred to the 
Committee in the 106th Congress. A total of 31 public laws 
resulted on issues within the Committee's jurisdiction. The 
Full Committee and its five subcommittees conducted 139 days of 
hearings on legislation under consideration and on oversight 
and administration of laws within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee. Twenty-eight of these hearings were field hearings. 
The Full Committee held 23 days of hearings. Finally, the Full 
Committee and its subcommittees held a total of 31 days of 
markup sessions in the consideration of legislation with 23 of 
these being Full Committee markup sessions. The Committee and 
subcommittees ordered reported 43 bills and resolutions.

                             FULL COMMITTEE


                        I. Summary of Activities

    In the 106th Congress, the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce moved major initiatives 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. PROMOTING ECONOMIC GROWTH AND STRENGTHENING EMPLOYEE RIGHTS

The FAIR Act--Attorney's fee legislation

    The Committee 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. 
Certain federal agencies are applying the law in ways that not 
only harm small employers--both businesses and labor 
organizations--but also do a great disservice to hardworking 
men and women who work for those employers.
    Chairman Goodling introduced H.R. 1987, the ``Fair Access 
to Indemnity and Reimbursement (FAIR) Act,'' on May 27, 1999. 
The bill amends the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) to provide that a 
small employer prevailing against either the National Labor 
Relations Board (NLRB) or the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA) will automatically be allowed to recoup 
the attorney's fees and expenses it spent defending against the 
unworthy action. The bill ensures that small businesses and 
small unions will have the incentive to fight meritless cases 
that the NLRB or OSHA brings against them. If either agency is 
going to bring its vast resources and expertise to bear upon an 
entity with meager resources, then the agency should pay the 
prevailing party's attorney's fees and expenses.
    A full committee mark-up was held on Thursday, July 29, 
1999. H.R. 1987 was ordered favorably reported, as amended, by 
a roll call vote of 24-19. This bill was reported to the full 
House on October 14, 1999. The Rules Committee reported a Rule 
on October 25, 1999, but the House did not debate the 
legislation during the 106th Congress. Sen. Tim Hutchinson, (R-
AR), introduced nearly identical legislation, S. 1158, in the 
Senate on May 27, 1999.
    The FAIR Act will help prevent spurious suits and ensure 
that small employers have the incentive to adequately represent 
themselves against the NLRB and OSHA. The Act applies to only 
the smallest 20 percent of businesses covered by the Equal 
Access to Justice Act--an Act passed in 1980 with unanimous 
support of both parties to ``level the playing field'' for 
small businesses, but which has been underutilized at the Board 
and OSHA. It is these very small entities that are most in need 
of the FAIR Act's protection.
    The Committee wants to ensure that those with modest means 
will not be forced to capitulate in the face of a meritless 
action brought by the Board or OSHA, while making those 
agencies' bureaucrats think long and hard before they start an 
action against a small company.

Worker paycheck fairness--the Beck issue

    The Committee continued during the 106th Congress to push 
aggressively for the rights of rank-and-file workers to 
exercise some control over the spending of their own union 
dues. The Worker Paycheck Fairness Act, H.R. 2434, creates a 
new, federal right implementing the spirit of the Supreme 
Court's 1988 Beck decision.
    In Beck, the Court held that workers could not be required 
to pay for activities beyond those related to legitimate union 
functions. H.R. 2434 applies only in circumstances in which 
employees work under a ``union security agreement,'' that is, 
when unions require workers to pay dues as a condition of 
keeping their jobs. In addition to requiring unions to get 
permission from workers in order to use union dues for 
activities unrelated to collective bargaining, the bill 
requires more detailed reporting of union financial records, 
requires employers to post a notice telling employees of these 
new rights, prohibits retaliation against workers exercising 
their rights, and gives workers strong enforcement rights.
    Chairman Goodling introduced H.R. 2434 on July 1, 1999. A 
full committee mark-up was held on November 3, 1999, and the 
bill was ordered reported to the full House by a vote of 25-22. 
The Committee on Education and the Workforce has held six 
hearings during the past three Congresses on the issue of 
compulsory union dues.
    All workers should have sufficient information about their 
rights regarding the payment of dues or fees to labor 
organizations and the uses of their dues and fees by unions. 
The Worker Paycheck Fairness Act protects to the greatest 
extent possible the right of all workers to make individual and 
informed choices about the political, social or charitable 
causes they support.
    Unions should be required to get written permission from 
union members before accepting payment of dues unrelated to 
collective bargaining, contract administration and grievance 
adjustment. Unions should also provide an accurate accounting 
of how they spend dues--including the ratio of dues related to 
legitimate functions and dues related to other purposes--and 
give all workers who pay dues access to the union's financial 
records.
    Working men and women face numerous obstacles in current 
law when attempting to acquire information from unions about 
how their dues are spent. Workers should be informed of their 
right to object to the payment of dues by posting in the 
workplace a notice of this right. The Worker Paycheck Fairness 
Act gives workers the right to give permission before unions 
take money out of their paychecks and the right to know how 
their money is spent. The Act addresses a matter of simple 
fairness by respecting workers' beliefs and personal 
convictions;protecting workers' paychecks; and expecting unions 
to provide workers with better financial information about where their 
hard-earned dollars go.

Clinton Administration's Proposed ``Blacklisting'' Regulations

    As it had done during the 105th Congress, the Education and 
the Workforce Committee played a major role in the 106th 
Congress combating the administration's proposed 
``blacklisting'' regulations. Vice President Gore announced at 
an AFL-CIO Executive Council 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. These proposed regulations would effectively create 
a ``blacklist'' to shut out various contractors from the yearly 
pool of approximately $200 billion in federal contracting 
dollars.
    Through efforts of this committee and others, the issuance 
of the proposed regulations was delayed until July 1999. 
Further pressure caused the administration ultimately to 
withdraw the rule. On June 30, 2000, however, revised proposed 
regulations were issued, and the comment period ended on August 
29, 2000. In some aspects the revised rule is even worse than 
the original effort. The latest version potentially 
``blacklists'' companies who have violated any federal labor 
and employment, tax, environmental, antitrust or consumer 
protection law. The proposed regulations would substantially 
revise, among other laws, federal labor law outside the proper 
congressional legislative process. The Committee has expressed 
its strong concern over the past three years that if the 
administration feels current contracting law is inadequate, it 
should submit its proposals to Congress.
    On July 20, 2000, the House passed (228-190) an amendment 
to the Treasury/Postal appropriations bill to prohibit the 
administration from spending funds to implement the 
regulations, although this amendment was subsequently dropped 
from the final version of the bill. On October 12, 2000, 
Chairman Goodling and workforce subcommittee chairs joined Rep. 
Davis and others in a letter to the Speaker, urging the 
inclusion of such language in a final budget package, and 
pointing out that the administration's own General Services 
Administration and the EPA have objected to the regulations. 
Sen. Tim Hutchinson (R-AR) introduced legislation on July 27 to 
similarly prohibit funds from being spent on the initiative, 
although the Senate did not attach the language to any 
appropriations bill.
    The administration's proposed regulations seek to upset the 
federal government's expressed procurement policy of remaining 
neutral in labor-management disputes, as set forth in the 
Federal Acquisition Regulations. They also put government 
bureaucrats in the absurd and troubling position of defining a 
``satisfactory'' record of labor and employment practices, 
opening up federal contracting to potential abuse of 
discretionary authority.

   B. EXAMINING THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROCESS AND ITS ENFORCEMENT

Collective bargaining rights for doctors

    During the 106th Congress, Rep. Tom Campbell of California 
introduced legislation granting collective bargaining rights to 
doctors and other health care professionals, effectively 
allowing them to band together and achieve leverage to 
negotiate higher fees with health plans and insurers. The bill, 
H.R. 1304, the ``Quality Health-Care Coalition Act of 1999,'' 
was drafted on its face as an ``antitrust'' exemption, thus 
avoiding referral of the bill to the Education and the 
Workforce Committee. However, the ``labor exemption'' to the 
antitrust law that the bill expands is a labor concept and the 
committee has dealt with related issues in the past. Chairman 
Goodling and Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee Chairman 
Boehner voiced strong objection not only to the bill, but also 
to the bill not being referred to the committee.
    The legislation promotes the interests of those clearly not 
``employees'' under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 
giving rights to those who are otherwise excluded from 
collective bargaining. Under current federal labor law, doctors 
are allowed to form unions and collectively bargain only if 
they are ``employees'' under the NLRA. H.R. 1304 treats doctors 
as if they were ``employees'' in collective bargaining units 
under the NLRA, even if they are otherwise considered 
independent contractors or supervisors.
    Congress has established through the NLRA a framework for 
employers and employees to collectively bargain and resolve 
their labor disputes. The committee has jurisdiction over the 
NLRA, and, under House Rule X(g)(6), broad authority over labor 
matters generally. H.R. 1304 is a labor bill that properly 
should have been referred to the committee. The committee also 
has jurisdiction over the Employee Retirement Income Security 
Act (ERISA), which governs all private employer sponsored 
health plans. H.R. 1304, while drafted as an ``antitrust'' 
exemption, would have profound cost increase implications for 
ERISA health plans--a further reason that the bill should have 
been referred to the committee.
    On June 15, 1999, Rep. Boehner wrote Speaker Hastert, 
pointing out that the bill, which was sent to the Judiciary 
Committee, should have been referred to the Education and the 
Workforce Committee. Mr. Boehner wrote that the legislation not 
only effectively amends the definition of ``employee'' under 
the NLRA and grants bargaining rights to those otherwise 
precluded under the Act, but also, if enacted, would have a 
multi-billion dollar impact on group health plans arising under 
ERISA.
    The bill would have created ``medical cartels''--groupings 
of doctors that could have undue and arguably illegal influence 
on the health insurance companies with which they individually 
and freely contract. According to Federal Trade Commission 
Chairman Robert Pitofsky, ``medical cartels'' created by H.R. 
1304 would be ``bad medicine for consumers'' as they `` * * * 
would not simply be on the health plans and employers that are 
forced to pay higher prices to health care practitioners, but 
can be expected to extend to various parties and in various 
ways, throughout the health care system: consumers and 
employers would face higher prices for coverage; consumers also 
would face higher out-of-pocket expenses as copayments and 
other unreimbursed expenses increased; consumers might face a 
reduction in benefits as costs increased * * * threaten[ing] to 
increase the already sizable portion of the population that is 
uninsured.''
    On July 21, 1999, Chairman Goodling wrote Speaker Hastert, 
formally requesting a referral of H.R. 1304 to the Education 
and the Workforce Committee and pointing out that in the 
alternative, there is a substantial, if not overwhelming, basis 
under House Rules and committee precedents for a concurrent 
referral.
    Chairman Goodling attached to his letter a memorandum 
prepared at his request by the American Law Division of the 
Congressional Research Service. That memo, written on July 12, 
1999 by Morton Rosenberg, concluded that the two essential 
concepts of H.R. 1304--granting bargaining rights and extending 
an implied labor antitrust exemption--are labor relations-
related. The memo also concluded that House Rules, the 
committee's long history of legislative actions and oversight 
with respect to subject matter that is the same or closely 
analogous to that of H.R. 1304, and the essentially labor-
related nature and orientation of the bill's core operational 
provision, which imparts antitrust immunity to bargaining 
decisions over wages, hours, and conditions of employment, 
establish a substantial basis for sole or at least concurrent 
referral to the committee.
    More specifically, the CRS memo discussed Supreme Court 
precedent relative to the scope of House committees' 
jurisdiction and to the fact that the nonstatutory labor 
exemption is a labor concept: ``Perhaps because on the face of 
[H.R. 1304] it appears to be primarily concerned with 
traditional antitrust issues * * * it was referred to the 
Judiciary Committee. But in fact the principal thrust of the 
bill is to import a judicial construct--the implied labor 
antitrust exemption--that is well understood as applicable 
exclusively in the context of labor law. As indicated in the 
discussion of the Supreme Court decisions in this area, the 
implied exemption emanates from the national labor laws alone 
and when applicable displaces the antitrust laws.''
    Chairman Goodling also argued that the bill's silence with 
respect to any mechanism for resolving disputes that may occur 
during collective bargaining, and to the establishment and 
enforcement of a legal duty to bargain, further supported 
referral to the committee. For example, the bill does not 
provide for any agency or other administration body to be 
responsible to enforce protections similar to those contained 
in the NLRA--for example, the duty to fairly represent all 
members of the bargaining unit, or even to determine the scope 
of the unit.

    C. REFORMING LABOR STANDARDS TO MEET THE CHALLENGES OF TODAY'S 
                               WORKPLACE

Rewarding Performance in Compensation Act

    On April 13, 1999, Chairman Ballenger introduced H.R. 1381, 
``The Rewarding Performance in Compensation Act.'' On May 19, 
1999, the subcommittee ordered H.R. 1381 favorably reported 
without amendment by voice vote. On June 23, 1999 during the 
full committee's consideration of H.R. 1381, Chairman Ballenger 
offered a substitute amendment that directly addressed concerns 
that were raised about the bill during the subcommittee's 
markup. The amendment would ensure that employees are made 
aware of the specifics of a bonus/gainsharing plan, including 
the amount of any payments to be made under the plan, and would 
ensure that such plans would not be abused by employers. The 
language in the amendment was derived from similar language in 
the Department of Labor's regulations on profit-sharing plans. 
The substitute amendment to H.R. 1381 was approved and reported 
by the committee. (See Workforce Protections Subcommittee 
activities for subcommittee action.)

The Family and Medical Leave Clarification Act

    On June 2, 2000, Chairman Goodling introduced H.R. 4499, 
the Family and Medical Leave Clarification Act. H.R. 4499 would 
make reasonable and needed changes to the Family and Medical 
Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993. The Family and Medical Leave 
Clarification Act would help implement and enforce the FMLA in 
a manner consistent with Congress' original intent.
    There is compelling evidence of problems with the 
implementation and enforcement of the FMLA, problems affecting 
both employers and employees. The FMLA is still a relatively 
young law. In fact, the final rule implementing the FMLA was 
not published until 1995. As with any new law, there are some 
growing pains that need to be sorted out.
    Testimony before the Oversight and Investigations 
Subcommittee on June 19, 1996 (during the 105th Congress) has 
established evidence of myriad problems in the workplace caused 
by the FMLA. These problems include: the administrative burden 
of allowing leave to be taken in increments of as little as six 
minutes; the additional burdens from overly broad and confusing 
regulations of the FMLA, not the least of which is the 
Department of Labor's ever-expanding definition of ``serious 
health condition;'' and inequities stemming from employers with 
generous leave policies in effect being penalized under the 
FMLA for having those policies.
    The first area the FMLA Clarification Act addresses is the 
Department of Labor's overly broad interpretation of the term 
``serious health condition.'' In passing the FMLA, Congress 
stated that the term ``serious health condition'' was not 
intended to cover short-term conditions for which treatment and 
recovery were very brief, recognizing specifically in Committee 
report language that ``it is expected that such conditions will 
fall within the most modest sick leave policies.''
    Despite Congressional intent, the Department of Labor's 
current regulations are extremely expansive, defining the term 
``serious health condition'' as including, among other things, 
any absence of more than three days in which the employee sees 
any health care provider and receives any type of continuing 
treatment, including a second doctor's visit, or a 
prescription, or a referral to a physical therapist. Such a 
broad definition potentially mandates FMLA leave where an 
employee sees a health care provider once, receives a 
prescription drug, and is instructed to call the health care 
provider back if the symptoms do not improve.
    The FMLA Clarification Act reflects Congress' original 
intent for the meaning of the term ``serious health 
condition,'' by taking word-for-word from the Democrat 
Committee report, and adding to the statute, the explanation of 
what types of conditions the sponsors intended the FMLA to 
cover. H.R. 4499 also repeals the department's current 
regulations on the issue and directs the agency to go back to 
the drawing board and issue regulations consistent with the new 
definition.
    In addition, the legislation also minimizes tracking and 
administrative burdens while maintaining the original intent of 
the law, by permitting employers to require employees to take 
``intermittent'' leave, which is FMLA leave taken in separate 
blocks of time due to a single qualifying reason, in increments 
of up to one-half of a work day.
    Congress drafted the FMLA to allow employees to take leave 
in less than full-day increments. Congress also intended to 
address situations where an employee needed to take leave for 
intermittent treatments, e.g., for chemotherapy or radiation 
treatments, or other medical appointments. Granting leave for 
these conditions has not been a significant problem.
    However, the regulations provide that an employer ``may 
limit leave increments to the shortest period of time that the 
employer's payroll system uses to account for absences or use 
of leave, provided it is one hour or less.'' Since some 
employers track in increments as small as six or eight minutes, 
the regulations have resulted in a host of problems related to 
tracking the leave and in maintaining attendance control 
policies. In many situations, it is difficult to know when the 
employee will be at work.
    In many positions, employees with frequent, unpredictable 
absences can severely impact an employer's productivity and 
overburden their co-workers when employers do not know if 
certain employees will be at work. Allowing an employer to 
require an employee to take intermittent leave in increments of 
up to one-half of a work day would ease the burden 
significantly for employers, both in terms of necessary 
paperwork and with respect to being able to provide effective 
coverage for absent employees.
    Where the employer does not exercise the right to require 
the employee to substitute other employer-provided leave under 
the FMLA, the FMLA Clarification Act shifts to the employee the 
requirement to request leave to be designated as FMLA leave.
    In addition, H.R. 4499 requires the employee to provide 
written application of foreseeable leave within five working 
days, and within a time period extended as necessary for 
unforeseeable leave, if the employee is physically or mentally 
incapable of providing notice or submitting the application.
    Requiring the employee to request that leave be designated 
as FMLA leave eliminates the need for the employer to question 
the employee and pry into the employee's private and family 
matters, as required under current law. This requirement helps 
eliminate personal liability for employer supervisors who 
should not be expected to be experts in the vague and complex 
regulations which even attorneys have a difficult time 
understanding.
    With respect to leave taken because of the employee's own 
serious health condition, the FMLA Clarification Act permits an 
employer to require the employee to choose between taking 
unpaid leave provided by the FMLA or paid absence under an 
employer's collective bargaining agreement or other sick leave, 
sick pay, or disability plan, program, or policy of the 
employer.
    This change provides incentive for employers to continue 
their generous sick leave policies while providing a 
disincentive to employers considering discontinuing such 
employee-friendly plans, including those negotiated by the 
employer and the employees' union representative. Paid leave 
would be subject to the employer's normal work rules and 
procedures for taking such leave, including work rules and 
procedures dealing with attendance requirements.
    Despite the common belief that leave under the FMLA is 
necessarily unpaid, employers having generous sick leave 
policies, or that have worked out employee-friendly sick leave 
programs with unions in collective bargaining agreements, are 
being penalized by the FMLA. In fact, for many companies, most 
FMLA leave has become paid leave because the regulations state 
that an employer must observe any employment benefit program or 
plan that provides rights greater than the FMLA.
    Because employers cannot use the taking of FMLA leave as a 
negative factor in employment actions, such as hiring, 
promotions or disciplinary actions, nor can they count FMLA 
leave under ``no fault'' attendance policies, the regulations 
prohibit employers from using disciplinary attendance policies 
to manage employees' absences.
    The Family and Medical Leave Clarification Act would 
relieve many of the unnecessary and unreasonable burdens 
imposed on employers and employees by the Department of Labor's 
implementing regulations, without rolling back the rights of 
employees under the FMLA. Finally, the bill encourages 
employers to continue to provide generous paid leave policies 
to their employees.

Birth and adoption unemployment compensation

    On December 3, 1999, the Department of Labor proposed 
changes to the regulations implementing the Federal 
Unemployment Insurance law. These changes would allow states to 
pay unemployment insurance benefits to employed parents on 
leave from work because of a birth or adoption.
    Allowing workers on birth or adoption leave to collect 
unemployment insurance benefits will hurt the unemployed by 
jeopardizing the solvency of the Unemployment Trust Fund. 
According to the Department of Labor, nearly half the states 
(and the country as a whole) lack adequate reserves to meet 
future claims. Expanding UI to cover birth and adoption leave 
diverts funds needed to pay basic unemployment insurance 
claims.
    The proposed rule violates the clear purpose of the 
Unemployment Insurance laws. Unemployment Insurance protects 
workers who lose their jobs. By definition, workers taking 
birth or adoption leave are not unemployed because they have 
jobs.
    On December 16, 1999, Chairman Bill Goodling and 
Subcommittee Chairmen Cass Ballenger, John Boehner, and Pete 
Hoekstra wrote the Secretary of Labor to request an extension 
of the comment period on the proposed regulation. The Secretary 
eventually extended the comment period by two weeks. On 
February 2, 2000, Chairman Bill Goodling and Subcommittee 
Chairmen Cass Ballenger, John Boehner, and Pete Hoekstra 
submitted comments in opposition to the proposed parental leave 
regulations.
    On June 13, 2000, the Department finalized the parental 
leave regulations. The regulations will have no effect until 
individual states enact implementing legislation. Despite some 
movement in the states in 2000, no state has passed legislation 
implementing the parental leave regulations.

Clarifying the Overtime Exemption for Firefighters

    On May 5, 1999, Rep. Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr. introduced a 
bill, H.R. 1693, to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to 
clarify the overtime exemption for fire fighters. H.R. 1693 was 
a simple and non-controversial bill to clarify section 7(k) of 
the Fair Labor Standards Act and restore the original intent of 
the overtime provisions for employees engaged in fire 
protection activities.
    On November 3, 1999, the committee favorably reported H.R. 
1693, without amendment, by voice vote. On November 4, 1999, 
the bill was considered by the House and passed, without 
amendment, by voice vote under suspension of the rules. The 
Senate considered the bill on November 19, 1999, under 
unanimous consent, and it passed by voice vote. On December 9, 
1999, H.R. 1693 became Public Law 106-151. It amended the Fair 
Labor Standards Act by adding a new definition for an employee 
in fire protection activities. An employee in fire protection 
activities is defined as an employee, including a fire fighter, 
paramedic, emergency medical technician, rescue worker, 
ambulance personnel, or hazardous materials worker, who is (1) 
trained in fire suppression, has the legal authority and 
responsibility to engage in fire suppression, and is employed 
by a fire department of a municipality, county, fire district, 
or state, and (2) is engaged in the prevention, control, and 
extinguishment of fires or responds to emergency situations 
where life, property, or the environment is at risk. (see 
Workforce Protections Subcommittee Activities for subcommittee 
action)

The Minimum Wage

    The committee held two hearings on the minimum wage, on 
April 27, 1999 and on October 7, 1999. The hearings were the 
first extensive review by the committee of issues raised by the 
minimum wage in many years. The hearings did not focus on any 
particular proposed increase. Rather, the purpose of the 
hearings was to examine the policy aspects of the minimum wage 
and look beyond the political rhetoric that often dominates the 
issue.
    The April hearing focused on recent research regarding the 
effectiveness of the minimum wage in reducing poverty. There 
were two reasons for focusing on this issue: one is that 
reducing poverty, by increasing income for the lowest-income 
working families, is the reason generally given for raising the 
minimum wage. Second, there are few issues more important than 
addressing the persistent presence and effects of poverty in 
the United States, even during this time of sustained economic 
growth. The committee heard from several academic researchers 
regarding the question of whether increasing the minimum wage 
is an effective way of combating poverty. The witnesses told 
the committee that increasing the minimum wage is not the most 
effective way, because it is not well-targeted at poor families 
and while it benefits some, it harms others whose employment 
opportunities are lessened.
    According to recent research presented by the witnesses, 
only 15 percent of the beneficiaries of a minimum wage increase 
represent the sole earner in a household. Furthermore, some 85 
percent of the beneficiaries of an increase in the minimum wage 
either live with their parents or another relative, live alone 
or have a working spouse. For many low-income families, a 
larger increase in the minimum wage would result in an actual 
loss of income. In addition, research has shown that the net 
benefit of a minimum wage increase to many families who are at 
or near the poverty level is very small due to high marginal 
tax rates.
    The witnesses discussed research that has shown that 
minimum wage increases have had little net effect on poverty, 
and may even increase the number of families in poverty. While 
minimum wage increases have resulted in increased income for 
some families in poverty, they have also resulted in less 
income for other families because of reduced employment 
(including fewer hours of work) and increases in the cost of 
basic goods, such as food.
    The October hearing focused on the impact of increasing the 
minimum wage on programs and efforts to help individuals move 
from welfare and public support to work and self support. The 
hearing provided an informational, educational review of recent 
research in this area. Witnesses suggested that minimum wages 
are not an efficient means of improving the financial 
independence of low-skilled adults, since the wage gains 
experienced by those who keep their jobs are counteracted by an 
increase in the welfare rolls. So, a higher minimum wage would 
benefit some individuals at the expense of others. The 
testimony also highlighted the issues faced by companies that 
set up and operate programs for the hiring of welfare 
recipients. The committee was told that few companies can 
afford to justify such extensive efforts without the partial 
financial offsets provided by the Work Opportunity and Welfare 
to Work Tax Credits.
    Testimony at the hearing focused in part on the State 
Flexibility proposal (H.R. 2928) introduced by Representative 
Jim DeMint (R-SC). The legislation would take into account the 
role of the states in moving welfare recipients into jobs and 
would grant states the flexibility to determine the appropriate 
wage for their state, dependent in part on local economic 
conditions.
    On March 9, 2000, the House considered H.R. 3081 (Lazio), a 
broad bill that would increase the minimum wage by one dollar 
over a three-year period, make other reforms to the Fair Labor 
Standards Act, and provide tax relief. A floor amendment 
offered by Representative James A. Traficant, Jr. (D-OH) to 
increase the minimum wage by one dollar over two years was 
accepted by a roll call vote of 246-179. The bill was referred 
to the Senate, which took no action prior to adjournment. On 
October 26, 2000, the House approved, by a vote of 237-174, a 
conference report on H.R. 2614 (Talent) that provided tax 
relief and a minimum wage increase.

        d. energy employees occupational injury compensation act

    The committee participated in discussions regarding the 
establishment of the Energy Employees Occupational Injury 
Compensation Act. This legislation was included as part of the 
Department of Defense Authorizing bill. Chairman Goodling was 
an outside conferee to the DOD authorization bill, which 
included a number of education and labor items. The final 
agreement included Title 36, a compromise provision, which 
establishes a compensation program and fund for certain 
Department of Energy employees, employees of DOE contractors, 
or their survivors, who may have been injured through the 
course of their employment at certain Department of Energy 
facilities in building the nation's nuclear arsenal.
    The program will cover employees who have beryllium 
disease, cancer due to radiation exposure at a DOE facility, 
and chronic silicosis. Another category of special cohorts, 
i.e., DOE employees who may have a specified cancer, is also 
included. Covered employees can receive $150,000 due to the 
disability or death of the employee and medical benefits. 
Employees with chronic silicosis are treated slightly 
differently in the provision because chronic silicosis is not 
unique to having worked at a DOE facility. The provision 
requires further enacting legislation in order for the program 
to move forward. The president is to submit such legislation 
not later than March 15, 2001 and Congress has until July 31, 
2001 to enact the full program. It is still to be determined 
which branch of the executive will administer the compensation 
program. The compromise provides for $250 million to establish 
the program which would automatically be funded as an 
entitlement in future years.
    The proposal also establishes an Advisory board on 
Radiation and Worker Health to develop guidelines on the 
scientific validity and quality of radiation dose estimation. 
The Advisory Board is also required to advise the president as 
to whether additional employees should be added to the special 
cohorts in the future.
    Title 36 also provides that individuals who have received a 
benefit under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act will be 
treated comparably to the DOE covered employees. Covered 
employees in Title 36 are required to elect their remedy to 
file suit or accept the compensation as provided in this title. 
Finally, the provision also provides that the Secretary of 
Energy is to assist state workers' compensation programs, as 
necessary, in the procedures and filing of claims by DOE 
contractor employees.

e. reauthorization of the elementary and secondary education act (esea)

    During the 106th Congress, the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce began work on the reauthorization of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). In December 
1998, organizations, associations and governmental bodies were 
invited to submit their legislative recommendations to the 
Committee. In addition, the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce, the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and 
Families, and the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 
held numerous hearings in Washington, D.C. and around the 
country to receive recommendations on revising ESEA, 
specifically with regard to improving the education of low-
achieving students.
    The Committee divided the ESEA authorization into several 
separate bills, allowing for more focused attention on each of 
the component parts. The bills which comprise the major parts 
of ESEA are: H.R. 3222, the Literacy Involves Families Together 
Act (LIFT); H.R. 1995, the Teacher Empowerment Act; H.R. 2, the 
Student Results Act; H.R. 4141, the Education OPTIONS Act; and 
H.R. 3616, the Impact Aid Reauthorization Act of 2000.

1. Family literacy

    The Even Start Family Literacy Program, authorized under 
Title I, Part B of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 
has been effective in helping break the cycle of illiteracy 
that exists in some families in this country. The program's 
effectiveness comes largely from working with the whole 
family--parents and their young children. Even Start provides 
parents with adult education services to assist them in 
becoming their child's first and most important teacher. At the 
same time, it provides children with an age appropriate 
education to help them become successful in school.
            Hearings on family literacy
    On May 12, 1999, the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce held a hearing entitled, ``Even Start and Family 
Literacy Programs Under the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act.'' Witnesses included representatives from the family 
literacy community, a state director of adult education, and 
the National Institute for Literacy.
    An additional hearing entitled ``The Importance of 
Literacy,'' was held by the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce on September 26, 2000. Witnesses included the 
Chancellor of the University System of Maryland, teachers using 
instructional programs based on scientifically based reading 
research, a former adult education student and an Even Start 
teacher.
            H. R. 3222, Literacy Involves Families Together Act (LIFT)
    On November 4, 1999, Chairman Bill Goodling (R-PA) 
introduced H.R. 3222, the Literacy Involves Families Together 
Act (LIFT). On February 16, 2000, the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce ordered the bill, as amended, favorably 
reported to the House of Representatives. The House of 
Representatives passed the LIFT bill on September 12, 2000 by 
voice vote. A modified version of the House-passed LIFT bill 
was enacted into law as a part of H.R. 4577, the FY 2001 
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
    As passed by the House of Representatives, LIFT would: (1) 
require states to review the progress of local programs to make 
sure they are meeting the goals of helping parents to read, 
helping children to learn, and training parents on how to be 
good teachers for their children; (2) permit states to use a 
portion of federal money to provide training and technical 
assistance to Even Start instructors, as long as the level of 
service to program participants at least remains the same; (3) 
require Even Start programs to use instructional programs based 
on scientifically based research for children and adults; (4) 
conduct a research project to ascertain the most effective ways 
to improve literacy among adults with reading difficulties; (5) 
amend Title I, Part A, Education of the Disadvantaged program 
and the Migrant Education program state plans under the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to allow states 
to encourage organizations that serve large numbers of 
children, whose parents do not have a high school education or 
who have low levels of literacy, to operate family literacy 
programs; (6) establish qualifications for individuals 
providing academic instruction to program participants and for 
the individuals administering local Even Start programs; (7) 
permit Even Start to serve children older than eight years of 
age if schools use Title I, Part A funds to pay a portion of 
the costs of those services; (8) increase from five percent to 
six percent the set-aside to serve migrants and Native 
Americans once appropriations for Even Start reach $200 
million; and (9) provide for the coordination of Even Start and 
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) family literacy programs in 
order to prevent duplication and ensure the sharing of 
information about quality programs.

2. H.R. 1995, Teacher Empowerment Act

    For a discussion on this bill, see the section on 
``Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education.''

3. H.R. 2, Student Results Act

    Chairman Bill Goodling (R-PA) introduced H.R. 2, the 
Dollars to the Classroom Act, on February 11, 1999. As 
introduced, the bill contained three titles: Title I--the 
Dollars to the Classroom resolution; Title II--the Education 
Flexibility Partnership Act; and Title III--the Financial 
Freedom Act of 1999. The amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by Chairman Goodling (R-PA) changed the name 
of the bill to the Student Results Act and replaced the 
language of the original bill with major changes to the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
    The amendment in the nature of a substitute authorized 
Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) 
and other programs assisting low achieving students. ESEA 
programs authorized in the bill are: Title I, Part A Education 
of the Disadvantaged; Title I, Part C Migrant Education; Title 
I, Part D Neglected and Delinquent; Title VII Bilingual 
Education; Title V, Part A Magnet Schools Assistance; Title IX 
Native American and Alaskan programs; Title X, Part B Gifted 
and Talented; Title X, Part J Rural Education; and the Stewart 
B. McKinney Homeless Assistance program.
    The amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2 was 
considered by the full Committee on October 5, 6, 7, and 13, 
1999. On October 13, 1999, the Committee ordered the bill, 
asamended, favorably reported to the House of Representatives by a vote 
of 42-6. H.R. 2 passed the House on October 21, 1999 by a vote of 358-
67. The Senate's companion legislation which authorizes these programs 
and all Elementary and Secondary Education Act programs is S. 2. The 
Senate began consideration of S. 2 in May 2000. After several days of 
debate, the bill was set aside. The Senate took no further action on 
the legislation.
            Hearings on Title I, Part A Education of the Disadvantaged
    On February 11, 1999, the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce held a hearing entitled ``The Administration's 
Education Proposals and Priorities for FY 2000.'' U.S. 
Department of Education Secretary Richard Riley testified on 
the education proposals contained in President Clinton's fiscal 
year 2000 budget, including Title I, Part A provisions.
    On April 14, 1999, the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce held a hearing entitled ``Title I of the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act: An Overview.'' The hearing was 
designed to present a broad overview of the Title I, Part A 
program emphasizing the history of Title I over the years and 
focusing upon the results of the National Assessment of Title 
I. The hearing also discussed a proposal to make the benefits 
under Title I, Part A portable.
    On June 10, 1999, the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce held a hearing entitled ``Key Issues in the 
Authorization of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act.'' The hearing focused upon the major issues 
involved in the authorization of Title I, Part A including 
standards and assessments completion, schoolwide and targeted 
assistance programs, qualifications of teachers' aides, 
parental compacts, private school participation, third party 
contracting, and school improvement and corrective action.
    On June 21, 1999, the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 
Youth and Families held a field hearing at Portage West Middle 
School in Portage, Michigan entitled ``Title I--Local Efforts 
to Boost Student Achievement.'' The hearing focused upon 
successful local efforts to boost student achievement under 
Title I, Part A.
    On July 27, 1999, the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce held a hearing entitled ``Title I: What's Happening 
at the School District and School Building Level'' to 
specifically focus on how Title I, Part A is utilized and 
administered at the local level. Witnesses included a Title I 
principal, a superintendent from a rural district, a 
superintendent from an urban district, a private contractor, 
and a reading researcher.
            Hearings on Comprehensive School Reform
    On July 13, 1999, the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce held a hearing entitled ``Comprehensive School 
Reform: Current Status and Issues.'' The hearing focused on the 
many issues surrounding comprehensive school reform, 
specifically the implementation of the $150 million 
comprehensive school reform grants that first became law in the 
FY 1998 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The hearing 
also focused upon several comprehensive school reform models.
            Hearings on programs assisting migrant and neglected and 
                    delinquent youth
    On July 22, 1999 the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce held a hearing on migrant education programs and 
programs that assist neglected and delinquent youth. The 
hearing was entitled ``Helping Migrant, Neglected, and 
Delinquent Children Succeed in School.'' Witnesses included the 
Director of the Office of Migrant Education at the U.S. 
Department of Education, a migrant student, a representative of 
the Interstate Migrant Education Council, and a student support 
specialist from a Pennsylvania migrant education program. A 
consultant for the Kentucky Department of Education testified 
about Kentucky's program for neglected and delinquent children.
            Hearings on Native American education programs
    On June 20, 1999, the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 
Youth and families held a hearing entitled ``Examining 
Education Programs Benefiting Native American Children.'' This 
hearing was designed to provide members of the subcommittee 
with needed information in preparation for the reauthorization 
of Indian education programs under the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act (ESEA).
            Hearings on gifted and talented and homeless education 
                    programs
    On July 15, 1999, the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 
Youth and Families held a hearing on the ``Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act--Educating Diverse Populations.'' The 
hearing focused on education initiatives incorporated in Title 
X of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and 
other programs of national significance. Among other things, 
the hearing reviewed the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented 
Students Education Program and the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless 
Assistance Act.
            Hearings on bilingual education
    The Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families 
held two hearings on bilingual education. The first hearing was 
held on June 24, 1999 in Washington, D.C. The second hearing 
was held on July 7, 1999 in McAllen, Texas. Witnesses included 
school officials, students, researchers and others interested 
in the education of limited English proficient children.
            Title I, Part A Education of the Disadvantaged
    Title I, Part A, the largest federal Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) program, provides supplemental 
educational services to children who are achieving below grade 
level. From the time it was first enacted in 1965 until the 
present, taxpayers have provided more than $120 billion in 
funding. The initial investment in 1965 of $960 million has 
risen to $7.9 billion in FY 2000. Title I, Part A grants or 
services are provided to nearly all school districts in the 
country--approximately 90 percent--and to 58 percent of public 
schools. Approximately 11,000,000 students are served, 
including 167,000 in private schools.
    Over its 35-year history, Title I, Part A has been 
confronted with questions about its effectiveness at raising 
the academic achievement of disadvantaged students and 
narrowing the achievement gap. The Prospects study, a national 
longitudinal study of Title I, Part A published in 1997, found 
that the Title I, Part A program did not appear to provide 
sufficient help for at-risk students in high-poverty schools to 
close their academic achievement gaps with students in low-
poverty schools.
    The National Assessment of Title I (NATI), released in 
1999, provided data on how Title I, Part A funds have been 
spent since the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act (ESEA). This study, mandated by 
Congress in the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act, did not provide longitudinal data on 
students or an assessment of whether Title I was effective in 
closing achievement gaps. Early data available from the 
longitudinal evaluation of Title I since the 1994 
reauthorization indicate that the program is not narrowing 
achievement gaps any more effectively than in earlier years. 
The interim report found that Title I students in the study 
performed ``somewhat below national and urban norms'' and were 
``showing somewhat less progress than would be expected over a 
full year.'' The proportion of students meeting the highest 
proficiency levels merely held steady during the two years for 
which data have been made available.
    Based on the findings from hearings, the Committee decided 
to maintain the existing standards-based approach to Title I, 
Part A that was adopted in the 1994 amendments (Improving 
America's Schools Act, P.L. 103-382) to Title I. The 1994 
changes to the Title I statute required states to develop state 
content and performance standards by the 1997-98 school year, 
and state assessments aligned to those standards by the 2000-
2001 school year. Though there has been progress in many states 
in implementing standards-based reforms since the 1994 
amendments, additional information is needed to reach a final 
conclusion at this juncture about the success or limitations of 
this approach in Title I; it is too early to determine whether 
the approach that was started in 1994 is working or whether 
adjustments or other approaches are needed. The NATI study 
itself points out that ``full implementation [of the 1994 
reforms] in classrooms across the country has yet to be 
accomplished.''
    The Committee has made many improvements and policy changes 
in an effort to strengthen the program. Many of the most 
significant changes were made to increase accountability for 
student performance, increase flexibility where possible, and 
expand school choice and parental involvement.
    The Committee accomplished these ends by: requiring final 
aligned assessments to be in place by the 2000-2001 school 
year; requiring all groups of students (economically 
disadvantaged, limited English proficient, and others) and not 
just the average of all students to show improvement; requiring 
report cards on the academic quality of Title I, Part A schools 
to be made available to parents and communities; providing 
public school choice to parents of students enrolled in low 
performing Title I, Part A schools; requiring written parental 
consent before placing a child in a bilingual education 
program; changing the schoolwide poverty threshold so that 
schools with more than 40 percent of children in poverty can 
take advantage of the flexibility to combine their federal 
program dollars (current law is 50 percent); strengthening 
teacher quality standards; and by improving protections for 
private schools.
    In H.R. 2 the Committee modified existing accountability 
provisions to ensure that all students, including each subgroup 
of students (economically disadvantaged, limited English 
proficient, minority, students with disabilities, etc.), make 
academic achievement gains at the state, school district and 
school levels. The Committee made this change to current law to 
ensure that the lowest performing students in Title I schools 
would not be left behind. In addition, the intent is to have 
schools focus resources on all children, and not merely upon 
improving the average of the school's test scores. This policy 
is based on the success of Texas, which requires schools to 
demonstrate that certain groups of students are meeting the 
same high standards in order to receive recognition.
    In order to provide financial incentives to increase 
academic performance, H.R. 2 allows up to 30 percent of any 
increase in Title I funding to be set aside by states to 
provide rewards to schools (and teachers in such schools) that 
substantially close the achievement gap between the lowest and 
highest performing students and that have made outstanding 
yearly progress for two consecutive years.
    The Committee worked to expand school choice options in 
Title I in order to free disadvantaged children from failing 
schools. Under H.R. 2, if a Title I school is designated for 
``school improvement'' (meaning that the school is low 
performing), then parents of children who attend the school 
would have the option of transferring to another public school 
or public charter school that is not in ``school improvement.'' 
Title I funding could be used, if local officials so decide, 
for transportation to another public school or public charter 
school.
    Based on findings that the public should have as much 
information as possible about the performance of their local 
schools, the Committee included language that strengthened 
requirements that states and school districts make academic 
achievement data available to parents and the public. The 
report will include information on each Title I school on 
student performance according to subgroups on state 
assessments; comparison of students at basic, proficient, and 
advanced levels of performance on state assessments; graduation 
rates; retention rates; completion of Advanced Placement 
courses; and qualifications of teachers and teachers' aides.
    The Committee strengthened requirements for teachers and 
teachers' aides in H.R. 2. Under current law, teachers' aides 
funded under Title I must, at a minimum, obtain a high school 
diploma or GED within two years of employment as an aide. The 
bill would require, not later than three years after enactment, 
all teachers' aides to have: (1) completed at least two years 
of study at an institution of higher education; (2) obtained an 
associate's or higher degree; or (3) met a rigorous standard of 
quality established at the local level, which includes an 
assessment of math, reading and writing. Also, H.R. 2 would 
freeze the number of paraprofessionals at their current levels, 
with limited exceptions.
    With respect to private school participation in Title I, 
Part A, the provisions requiring school districts to have 
timely and meaningful consultations with private school 
officials were significantly strengthened. In addition, the 
Committee made changes to make it easier forprivate schools to 
appeal to the secretary of education to receive Title I funds directly 
from the secretary instead of the school district in situations where 
services are not satisfactory.
    The Committee continued the requirement that school 
districts rank and serve schools in school districts according 
to poverty (from highest to lowest). However, it expanded 
flexibility and gave school districts the option of giving 
priority to elementary schools. No changes were made in the 
formulas, but a hold harmless would be applied to the basic and 
concentration grants. The Committee repealed the education 
finance incentive grant, which has never been funded.
    During floor consideration of H.R. 2 a number of amendments 
were offered and accepted by the House. First, Representative 
Tim Roemer (D-IN) offered an amendment to increase the 
authorization of Title I, Part A by an additional $1.5 billion. 
This increase would bring the total authorization for Title I 
to $9.9 billion annually. The amendment passed by a vote of 
243-181.
    Second, an amendment was offered by Representative Patsy 
Mink (D-HI) to require schoolwide programs to include 
strategies that incorporate gender equitable methods and 
practices. Under the amendment, professional development under 
Title I must include strategies for eliminating gender and 
racial bias in instructional materials, methods, and practices, 
and may include instruction in the ways that teachers, 
principals and guidance counselors can encourage and maintain 
the interest of females and minorities in math, science, 
engineering, and technology. In addition, $5 million is 
authorized to provide grants to educational agencies and 
institutions under the Women's Educational Equity Act. The 
amendment passed by a vote of 311-111.
    Third, an amendment was offered by Representative Bob 
Schaffer (R-CO) to require school districts to offer public 
school choice to students who are victims of a violent criminal 
offense while at school or to permit students who attend 
schools designated as unsafe to transfer to another school. The 
amendment passed by voice vote.
    Fourth, Representative Vernon Ehlers (R-MI) offered an 
amendment to require science standards and assessments under 
Title I. Under current law, Title I only requires standards and 
assessments of mathematics and reading or language arts. The 
amendment passed by a vote of 360-62.
    Lastly, Representative Robert Andrews (D-NJ) offered an 
amendment to permit schools to use their schoolwide program 
funds to establish or enhance pre-kindergarten programs. 
Representative Bill Goodling (R-PA) offered a second-degree 
amendment to allow schools to use their Title I funds to 
establish or enhance pre-kindergarten programs for three, four 
and five-year-olds, such as Even Start. The second-degree 
amendment passed by voice vote.
            Migrant Education
    The Migrant Education program is authorized under Title I, 
Part C of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The 
Migrant Education program provides additional assistance to 
migrant children to help ensure they do not fall behind 
academically or drop out of school. In general, migrant 
students sometimes experience academic difficulties as a result 
of multiple moves during the school year to accompany their 
parents as they move from town to town.
    H.R. 2 included several key changes to the current Title I, 
Part C Migrant Education program. The new provisions would: (1) 
require the secretary of education to work with states in 
developing effective methods for the transfer of student 
records and to determine the minimum data elements to be 
maintained and transferred; (2) simplify the formula for 
distributing funds to states; and (3) provide states with 
increased flexibility in the use of funds.
            Neglected and delinquent youth
    The Neglected and Delinquent Youth Education program is 
authorized under Title I, Part D of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act. The program provides academic 
assistance to neglected and delinquent children who are served 
in state agency programs.
    H.R. 2 included several modest changes to the Title I, Part 
D Program. The majority of the changes were directed at 
ensuring that the Subpart 2 program for local educational 
agencies is focused primarily on serving youth returning from 
local correctional agencies to local schools or programs of 
alternative education. The measure also changed the amount of 
funds set aside to use in the transitioning of youth in state 
correctional facilities back to their local schools. The amount 
increased from 10 to 15 percent.
            Comprehensive school reform
    Under current law, the authority for the comprehensive 
school reform grant program is found in manager's language 
included in the FY 1998 Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-
78). H.R. 2 establishes the comprehensive school reform program 
in statute as a new Part G of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act. The comprehensive school reform grant program 
provides financial incentives for schools to develop 
comprehensive reforms to change an entire school. The reforms 
must be based upon reliable research and effective practices, 
and emphasize basic academics and parental involvement.
            Magnet Schools Assistance Program
    The Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP) is authorized 
under Title V, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act. It provides competitive grants to local educational 
agencies for magnet schools to reduce, eliminate, or prevent 
minority group isolation in elementary and secondary schools 
and to provide strengthened academic or vocational programs for 
students. In order to be eligible for a grant, a local 
educational agency must be participating in a court ordered or 
voluntary desegregation plan. Magnet schools provide a special 
curriculum intended to attract students of different races.
    H.R. 2 makes a number of revisions to the Magnet Schools 
Assistance Program, while keeping the basic structure intact. 
These revisions include an additional emphasis on student 
achievement and a renewed focus on serving magnet schools. 
Specifically, the bill reinstates the program's commitment to 
student achievement by not only stressing the need to reduce 
minority group isolation in elementary and secondary schools, 
but also by strengthening the findings,application, and 
requirements sections in relation to academic performance. In addition, 
the bill includes professional development as a use of funds.
            Women's educational equity
    The Women's Educational Equity Act (WEEA) is authorized 
under Title V, Part B of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act. It promotes gender equity in education and provides 
financial assistance to enable educational agencies and 
institutions to comply with Title IX of the Education 
Amendments of 1972, which prohibits sex discrimination in 
educational programs or activities that receive federal 
financial assistance. WEEA authorizes the secretary of 
education to award grants: (1) to develop and implement gender 
equity programs; and (2) to provide ``support and technical 
assistance'' in areas such as teacher training and evaluation 
of exemplary programs, as well as for research and development. 
As reported from the Committee on Education and the Workforce, 
H.R. 2 did not include an authorization for the WEEA program. 
Thereafter, on October 20, 1999, an amendment authorizing WEEA 
passed the House. The amendment added language to H.R. 2 that: 
(1) requires schoolwide programs in Title I, Part A to include 
strategies for meeting the needs of girls and women; (2) 
requires professional development activities in Title I, Part A 
to include strategies for identifying and eliminating gender 
and racial bias in instructional materials, methods, and 
practices; (3) adds language to professional development 
activities in Title I, Part A to encourage females and 
minorities to maintain an interest in careers in mathematics, 
science, engineering, and technology; and (4) shifts the focus 
of the Neglected and Delinquent Youth program from youth 
returning from correctional facilities to youth at risk of 
dropping out of school.
            Teacher liability
    The ``teacher liability protection'' provision included in 
H.R. 2 is a new provision of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act. It provides limited civil litigation immunity 
for teachers, principals, local school board members, 
superintendents, and other education professionals who engage 
in reasonable actions to maintain order, discipline, and a 
positive education environment in America's schools and 
classrooms.
            Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native education
    Title IV of H.R. 2 amends Title IX of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act, as well as Title XI of the Education 
Amendments of 1978, and the Tribally Controlled Schools Act of 
1988. Taken together, these statutes provide most of the 
federal government's education aid that is specifically 
targeted to American Indian and Alaska Native students and the 
schools and organizations that serve them.
    During hearings of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 
Youth and Families, members of the subcommittee heard testimony 
from six witnesses on programs operated by the U.S. Department 
of Education, and by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), how 
these programs serve Indian students, and how such services 
might be improved. Suggested changes were then evaluated by the 
Committee to determine the extent to which they improved 
administration of the programs to make them more responsive to 
schools, teachers, and students; respected the tribal concerns 
regarding the education the Indian children receive; and 
ensured the highest possible quality, producing real, 
accountable results.
    The changes incorporated in H.R. 2 focused on improving 
student achievement, targeting resources to the programs that 
are providing the best results, increasing the flexibility of 
the programs at the local level so that Native Americans and 
Alaskan Natives can make the decisions which impact themselves, 
reducing the administrative burden placed on participating 
entities, increasing the amount of aid that actually reaches 
the classroom, and increasing the emphasis placed on family 
literacy services for the affected populations. In addition, 
with respect to education programs funded by the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs, the Committee has shifted much authority and 
responsibility to the tribes, tribal organizations, and local 
school boards while maintaining accountability for the use of 
federal funds. The Committee recognizes that, if given the 
chance, these entities, working with the parents of Indian 
children can and will do a far better job of improving student 
achievement than any federal agency.
    In addition, during Committee consideration of H.R. 2, the 
Committee accepted an amendment offered by Representative John 
Boehner (R-OH) to eliminate the Native Hawaiian programs 
formerly authorized under Title IX, Part B of the ESEA. This 
action was consistent with attempts to reduce duplication of 
effort and focus scarce federal resources to those in greatest 
need. The Clinton administration proposed similar action in its 
FY 1995 budget request.
            Gifted and Talented Children
    The Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented program was first 
authorized in 1988 to serve the educational needs of gifted and 
talented children. The program is authorized under Title X, 
Part B of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It 
supports a national research effort and awards competitive 
grants to state and local educational agencies, institutions of 
higher education, and other public and private agencies and 
organizations to help build a nationwide capability to meet the 
needs of gifted and talented students in elementary and 
secondary schools. Since 1989, the Javits Gifted and Talented 
program has funded almost 100 grants that have supported model 
programs and practices for educating gifted and talented 
students nationwide. The Committee amendment to H.R. 2 makes 
minor changes to current law and incorporates a version of H.R. 
637, the Gifted and Talented Students Education Act, introduced 
by Representative Elton Gallegly (R-CA). The amendment provides 
formula grants to states to implement successful research 
findings and model projects.
    Subpart 1 of the Committee amendment eliminates previously 
unfunded subsections and stipulates that all research conducted 
shall be ``scientifically based.'' Subpart 2 provides formula 
grants, based on student population, to state educational 
agencies to support programs and services for gifted and 
talented students. Once the current program reaches funding 
sufficient to provide formula grants to the states, subpart 2 
activities are triggered and conducted in lieu of subpart 1. 
The trigger for subpart 2 activities is $50,000,000. Subpart 2 
authorizes state educational agencies to distribute grants to 
local educational agencies, including charter schools, on a 
competitive basis to provide gifted and talented students with 
programs and services. Authorized activities for subpart 2 
include: (1) professional development, including in-service 
training for general education teachers, administrators, or 
other personnel at the elementary andsecondary levels; (2) 
innovative programs and services, including curriculum for high-ability 
students; (3) emerging technologies, including distance learning; and 
(4) technical assistance to schools and local districts. Subpart 3 
maintains activities conducted by the National Research Center on the 
Gifted and Talented at $1,950,000 for both subparts 1 and 2.
            Rural Education Assistance
    Special assistance to rural school districts is authorized 
under Part J of Title X of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act. The Committee amendment to H.R. 2 combines 
features of H.R. 2725, the Rural Education Initiative Act, 
introduced by Representative Bill Barrett (R-NE) and H.R. 2997, 
the Low-Income and Rural School Program, introduced by 
Representative Van Hilleary (R-TN), to address the unique 
problems associated with the education of students in rural 
school districts. Specifically, this amendment replaces Part J 
of Title X of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and it 
addresses the different needs of (1) small, rural school 
districts and (2) low-income, rural school districts.
    Subpart 1 of the Committee amendment addresses the needs of 
small, rural school districts. A local educational agency would 
be able to use applicable funding to support local or statewide 
education reform efforts intended to improve the academic 
achievement of elementary and secondary school students and the 
quality of instruction provided for these students. A local 
educational agency would be eligible to use funding under this 
subpart if: (1) the total number of students in average daily 
attendance at all of the schools served by the local 
educational agency is less than 600; and (2) all of the schools 
served by the local educational agency are located in a 
community with a Rural-Urban Continuum Code (Beale Code) of 6, 
7, 8, or 9, as determined by the secretary of agriculture. An 
eligible local educational agency would be able to combine 
funds from Title II, Eisenhower Professional Development 
Programs; Title IV, Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities; 
Title VI, Innovative Education Program Strategies; Title VII, 
Part A, Bilingual Education; Title VII, Part C, Emergency 
Immigrant Education Program; and Title X, Part I, 21st Century 
Community Learning Centers formula grant programs and use the 
money to support local or statewide education reform efforts. 
Grants under this subpart would be awarded to eligible local 
educational agencies based on the number of students in average 
daily attendance less the amount they received from the 
aforementioned formula grant programs. Minimum grants for local 
educational agencies would not be less than $20,000. The 
maximum a local educational agency could receive would be 
$60,000. Local educational agencies participating in this 
initiative would have to meet high accountability standards by 
demonstrating the ability to meet academic achievement 
standards under Title I, such as the state's definition of 
adequate yearly progress. Schools failing to meet these 
requirements would not be eligible for continued funding.
    Subpart 2 of the Committee amendment addresses the needs of 
low-income, rural school districts. A local educational agency 
is eligible to use the applicable funding under subpart 2 if it 
serves (1) a school-age population, 20 percent or more of whom 
are from families with incomes below the poverty line; and (2) 
all of the schools served by the local educational agency are 
located in a community with a Rural-Urban Continuum Code (Beale 
Code) of 6, 7, 8, or 9, as determined by the secretary of 
agriculture. Funds for this subpart are allocated among states 
by formula based on enrollment in eligible districts within 
those states. States, in turn, allocate funds to eligible local 
educational agencies competitively or according to a state-
determined formula based on the number of students each 
eligible local educational agency serves. Funds awarded to 
local educational agencies or made available to schools under 
this subpart can be used for: educational technology; 
professional development; technical assistance; teacher 
recruitment and retention; parental involvement activities; or 
academic enrichment programs. A local educational agency 
utilizing subpart 2 may not utilize subpart 1.
            McKinney Homeless Education Improvements Act of 1999
    Subtitle B of Title VII of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless 
Assistance Act authorizes formula grants to states, based on 
state allocations for grants to local educational agencies 
under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act. Grants must be used for state and local programs to 
provide equal access to a free, public education for homeless 
children and youth, including a public preschool education, 
equivalent to that provided to other children and youth. Grants 
must also be used to establish an Office of Coordinator of 
Education of Homeless Children and Youth within each state 
educational agency; implement professional development 
activities for school personnel; and provide each child or 
youth the opportunity to meet the same state student 
performance standards that others are expected to meet. The 
Committee amendment to H.R. 2 incorporates a variation of H.R. 
2888, ``The Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Education Assistance 
Improvements Act of 1999,'' introduced by Representative Judy 
Biggert (R-IL) and provisions in the Clinton administration's 
``Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999,'' to 
help homeless children enroll, attend, and succeed in school.
    The McKinney Act currently requires states to provide 
estimates of the number of homeless children and youth in their 
states and information about their access to education and 
related services. This provision has resulted in widely varying 
data in both quality and quantity. States do not have the 
resources or the expertise to conduct these kinds of 
assessments, and the lack of a uniform method of data 
collection has resulted in unreliable national data. The 
Committee amendment eliminates the requirement that the state 
homeless coordinator estimate the number of homeless children 
in the state and the number of homeless children served by the 
program. Under the Committee amendment, this responsibility is 
placed under the authority of the secretary of education who 
shall, either directly or through grants, contracts, or 
cooperative agreements, periodically collect and disseminate 
data and information on the number and location of homeless 
children and youth; the education and related services such 
children and youth receive; and the extent to which such needs 
are being met. The result of these changes to the McKinney Act 
will enable a more reliable and uniform data collection method 
that will help guide Congress in making accurate funding 
decisions.
    Many homeless children and youth are forced to wait days 
and even weeks before they can enroll in school because they do 
not have the necessary paperwork required for enrollment such 
as proof of residency, previous academic records, birth 
certificates, and other documentation. According to the FY 1997 
U.S. Department of Education Report to Congress (issued in 
1999), states reported that lack of school records and birth 
certificates were among the most frequent reasons for homeless 
children and youth not attending school. In addition, the 
report noted that lack of documentation is among the reasons 
that 45 percent of homeless children and youth were not 
attending school on a regular basis during their homelessness. 
The Committee amendmentdirects schools to immediately enroll a 
homeless child even if they are unable to produce the documents 
normally required for enrollment. However, to help ensure a healthy 
environment for all students, the Committee amendment does not require 
schools to accept a homeless child until the enrolling school receives 
their immunization records. In cases where a homeless child is denied 
enrollment because of immunization records, the enrolling school shall 
promptly refer his or her parent or guardian to the homeless liaison to 
assist in resolving enrollment disputes. In addition, the Committee 
amendment directs the secretary to issue a report to be made available 
to states, local educational agencies, and other applicable agencies. 
This report will address successful ways in which states can help local 
educational agencies immediately enroll homeless children.
    Nationwide, the lack of transportation is one of the most 
pervasive barriers to enrollment and success in school for 
homeless children and youth. According to the FY 1997 U.S. 
Department of Education Report to Congress (issued in 1999), 
lack of transportation to or from temporary residences was the 
most frequent reason given by states as to why homeless 
children and youth did not attend school. Forty states listed 
transportation as a major need to be addressed to ensure the 
individual academic success of a homeless child or youth. The 
Committee amendment directs the secretary of education to 
develop and issue a report to be made available to states, 
local educational agencies, and other applicable agencies. This 
report will encourage states to follow programs implemented in 
state law that have successfully addressed transportation 
barriers for homeless children and youth.
            Bilingual Education
    Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
authorizes the Bilingual Education Act and the Emergency 
Immigrant Education Program. The Bilingual Education Act 
provides funds, on a competitive basis to assist local 
educational agencies, institutions of higher education and 
community-based organizations to provide services to limited 
English proficient children. The goal of the program is to help 
such children to develop proficiency in the English language 
and perform well in school. The Emergency Immigrant Education 
Program provides funds to states to pay for enhanced 
instructional opportunities for immigrant children and youth. 
Funds are distributed to states through a formula that takes 
into consideration the number of immigrant children and youth 
enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools.
    During floor consideration of H.R. 2, Chairman Bill 
Goodling (R-PA) offered a manager's amendment that amended the 
Bilingual Education Act and extended the authorization for the 
Emergency Immigrant Education program.
    H.R. 2 makes the following key changes to the Bilingual 
Education Act: (1) turns the act into a formula grant program 
after reaching a specified funding threshold; (2) requires 
local educational agencies to receive informed parental consent 
prior to placing children in an instructional program for 
limited English proficient children; (3) permits local 
providers to choose the method of instruction they would use to 
teach limited English proficient children; and (4) includes a 
variety of accountability provisions that would ensure limited 
English proficient children were learning English. The 
legislation also included revised provisions dealing with 
professional development and research.

4. H.R. 4141, Education OPTIONS Act

    Chairman Bill Goodling (R-PA) introduced H.R. 4141, the 
Education OPTIONS Act on March 30, 2000. H.R. 4141 authorized 
the remaining titles of the ESEA that were not authorized in 
the Student Results Act (H.R. 2), the Teacher Empowerment Act 
(TEA, H.R. 1995), the Literacy Involves Families Together Act 
(LIFT, H.R. 3222), the Impact Aid Reauthorization Act of 2000 
(H.R. 3616), and the Straight A's Act (H.R. 2300). ESEA 
programs authorized in the Education OPTIONS Act are: Safe and 
Drug-Free Schools; Technology for Education; Innovative 
Education Program Strategies; Programs of National Significance 
(Fund for the Improvement of Education, Arts in Education, 
Public Charter Schools, Civic Education); and General 
Provisions.
    On April 5, 6, 11, 12, and 13, 2000 the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce considered an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute to H.R. 4141. The full Committee 
favorably reported H.R. 4141, as amended, to the House of 
Representatives by a vote of 25-21 on April 13, 2000. The House 
did not take further action on the bill. The Senate's companion 
legislation which authorizes these programs and all Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act programs is S. 2. The Senate began 
consideration of S. 2 in May 2000. After several days of 
debate, the bill was set aside. The Senate has taken no further 
action.
            State and local transferability
    The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held more 
than thirty hearings around the country during the 104th, 
105th, and 106th Congresses. Testimony from those hearings 
consistently supported increased flexibility in the operation 
of federal programs, and improvement in the operations of 
programs at the local level. During the 106th Congress the 
Committee undertook a number of actions to provide state and 
local educational agencies with flexibility tools in order to 
enable them to tailor federal programs to meet the needs of 
their students. H.R. 800 (The Education Flexibility Partnership 
Act), and H.R. 2300 (The Academic Achievement for All Act 
(Straight A's)) made significant steps towards increasing 
flexibility and accountability to improve student performance.
    The flexibility granted by Title I (known as the ``State 
and Local Transferability Act'') of H.R. 4141 is designed to be 
an option for states that do not choose to participate in 
Straight A's, and for school districts in states that choose 
not to participate, since it functions within the existing 
structure of categorical funding streams. It provides 
flexibility in using federal dollars without removing the 
requirements attached to those dollars. States and local school 
districts would have the flexibility to shift federal dollars 
to other federal education programs that more effectively 
address their needs and priorities. Transferability gives 
states and districts freedom to shift federal dollars from one 
program to another, while keeping the program requirements 
intact. In addition to Ed-Flex, it is a powerful tool for 
districts and states to use to tailor federal programs to meet 
their needs.
    The Committee modeled this provision on the ``unneeded 
funds'' provision in current law (section 14206 of Title XIV of 
ESEA). Under that provision, if a state educational agency 
approves, school districts may shift a percentage of funding 
from one ESEA program to anotherin any fiscal year. In order to 
be granted permission to shift these funds, a school district must 
demonstrate that the funds are not needed for their original purposes. 
Up to five percent of these programs' funds may be shifted between any 
of the major formula grant programs: Title I, Part C (Education of 
Migratory Children); Title II (Eisenhower Professional Development 
Program); Title III, Subpart 2 of Part A (Technology Innovation 
Challenge Grants); Title IV, Subpart 1 of Part A (Safe and Drug-Free 
Schools, Grants to LEAs); and Title VI (Innovative Education Program 
Strategies). Five percent may also be transferred into, but not out of, 
Title I, Part A (Grants to LEAs).
    Under the State and Local Transferability Act, states are 
permitted to transfer up to 100 percent of state activities 
funds between formula grant programs. State activity funds do 
not include funds that are to be allocated to local educational 
agencies, as required by each statute. These formula grant 
programs are: Title II (Teacher Empowerment Act); Title III 
(technology); Title IV, Part A (Safe and Drug-Free state 
grants); Title VI (Innovative Education Program Strategies); 
Title VII Part C (Emergency Immigrant Education); and 
Comprehensive School Reform.
    Local educational agencies would be permitted to transfer 
up to 35 percent of funds without the approval of the state. 
Any amounts above that percentage would require the approval of 
the state. Applicable programs are: Title II (Teacher 
Empowerment Act--includes Eisenhower and Class Size); Title III 
(Technology); Title IV, Part A (Safe and Drug-Free state 
grants); Title VI (Innovative Education Program Strategies); 
and Emergency Immigrant Education grants. By allowing school 
districts to transfer a portion of funds without the permission 
of their state, the act provides them with flexibility to 
tailor their federal dollars to their needs while still meeting 
the specific program requirements of each federal program.
    The Committee ensured that the Title I program was not only 
protected, but also potentially enhanced by this title. State 
and local school districts may transfer funds from the above 
programs into any part of Title I, but no funds can be 
transferred out of Title I into another program.
    The Committee passed the State and Local Transferability 
Act in large measure because it determined that the ``unneeded 
funds'' provision was too limited to provide useful flexibility 
to school districts or states. In September 1998, the General 
Accounting Office (GAO) reported that the ``unneeded funds'' 
option is ``often unavailable and seldom used.'' In their 
survey of 50 state educational agencies, only half reported 
that they allowed local school districts to take advantage of 
this provision. Even when it was offered it was rarely used. 
Districts took advantage of this option in only one third of 
the states that allowed them to do so. One state (not named by 
GAO) did make use of this provision, with more than ten percent 
of its districts exercising the provision.
    The Committee has heard from school districts around the 
country that they want meaningful flexibility in using their 
federal dollars. The ``unneeded funds'' provision is 
insufficient because it only allows a small percentage to be 
transferred, which for all but the largest school districts 
means that a very small amount of money is flexible. Limiting 
this option to a small amount of funds provides little in the 
way of an incentive to school districts to jump through the 
appropriate bureaucratic hoops to shift the funds from one 
account to another. Five percent is simply too little to make a 
difference. In addition, states are not given the option of 
shifting state activity dollars, even though they are free to 
consolidate administrative funds from different programs.
    Many major education associations representing people 
involved in education at the local level supported this 
provision. Their support was extremely significant, as they 
represent the people on the front lines who administer these 
federal programs. For example, the National School Boards 
Association in a February 18, 2000 letter to Chairman Bill 
Goodling (R-PA) wrote, ``This increased flexibility will 
greatly aid local school districts as they struggle to balance 
many important education priorities with inadequate federal 
funding.'' Clearly, it is those closest to the schools that see 
the need and the value of transferability.
    The State and Local Transferability Act will be a useful 
tool at the state and local levels to direct federal program 
dollars to the federal program that best meets the needs of 
students. Federal programs simply cannot allocate funds to 
15,000 school districts in a manner that precisely provides for 
their needs. Transferability can sharpen the ability of federal 
funds to target pressing needs, and as effectively as possible. 
It also grants local flexibility to address needs that often 
change from one year to the next, since these transfers are not 
permanent, and must be made on an annual basis. The enactment 
of this provision would be another important step towards 
making sure that the needs of children, not bureaucracy, are 
the driving force behind federal education programs.
            Supporting drug and violence prevention and education for 
                    students and communities
    Title II of H.R. 4141 would combine the Safe and Drug-Free 
Schools program and 21st Century Community Learning Centers 
Act, and reauthorize the Gun Free Schools Act. Currently, the 
Safe and Drug-Free Schools program provides grants to states 
and to national programs to support substance abuse education 
and violence prevention activities. The 21st Century Community 
Learning Centers program provides funds to local educational 
agencies to increase students' and communities' access to 
school building services. The Gun Free Schools Act hinges a 
state's receipt of federal ESEA funds on whether the state has 
a law requiring local educational agencies to expel for a year 
a student who brings a gun to school. State law must allow the 
chief administering officer of local educational agencies to 
modify the one-year expulsion on a case-by-case basis.
    The Safe and Drug-Free proposal would retain the current 
federal to state formula based 50 percent on school age 
population and 50 percent on Title I, and the state to local 
formula split of 70 percent based on school age population and 
30 percent based on need, with the state sending a total of 96 
percent of the funds it receives down to the local educational 
agencies. An amendment offered by Representative Mike Castle 
(R-DE) during committee mark up provides that of the 30 percent 
need-based funds, 30 percent shall be sent to local educational 
agencies to support alternative education programs. A separate 
amendment offered by Representative Marge Roukema (R-NJ) 
requires that in determining which local educational agencies 
will receive funds under the 30 percent need distribution, 
special consideration shall be given to those that incorporate 
school based mental health services programs.
    The Safe and Drug-Free Schools proposal would provide a 10 
percent floor and include a 20 percent cap on spending for Drug 
Abuse and Resistance Education program (DARE)-type activities, 
without naming DARE, as eligible for funding. With the 
remaining funds (90-80 percent, less up to five percent for 
administration), governors must fund competitive grants to 
local educational agencies, community-based organizations, and 
private childcare providers for drug and violence prevention 
and after school care.
    The Education OPTIONS Act would combine the Safe and Drug-
Free Schools and 21st Century programs uses of funds to include 
the following uses of funds:
    K-12 comprehensive drug and violence prevention programs;
    Training for school personnel and parents in drug and 
violence prevention;
    Community involvement activities for drug and violence 
prevention;
    Acquisition of metal detectors and security personnel;
    School security assessments and training;
    Creation and maintenance of safe zones of passage to and 
from school;
    Counseling, mentoring, and referral services;
    Services and activities to reduce suspensions and 
expulsions;
    Before and after school programs (including entrepreneurial 
education, remedial education, extended learning programs, peer 
resistance education, educational children's day care, youth 
science education, and arts and music education);
    Character education;
    Drug testing and locker searches;
    Establishment of school uniform policies;
    Emergency intervention services;
    School violence hotlines;
    Systems for transferring suspension and expulsion records;
    Personnel background checks;
    School-based mental health services;
    School choice for students in unsafe public schools;
    Drug and violence prevention program coordinators;
    Mentoring and tutoring services;
    Program and activity evaluation;
    Alternative education programs; and
    Activities to increase student academic achievement.
    The Education OPTIONS Act includes ``principles of 
effectiveness,'' requiring that any program or activity funded 
under the drug and violence prevention parts of the bill meet 
the following requirements: (1) be based upon an assessment of 
objective data about the local drug and violence problem and 
current drug and violence prevention activities, including 
activities to increase student academic achievement; (2) be 
based upon performance measures established by the local 
education agencies; (3) be based upon ``scientifically based 
research'' that provides evidence that the program or activity 
will prevent or reduce drug abuse and violence (there is a 
waiver for innovative programs with a likelihood of success); 
and (4) be periodically evaluated with the results used to 
improve the program or activity.
    The Safe and Drug-Free Schools proposal would eliminate all 
references to ``hate crimes'' and ``violence associated with 
prejudice and intolerance.'' It would also include religious 
non-discrimination language.
    The proposal contains charitable choice language 
substantially similar to language that is already a part of 
current law in the Community Services Block Grant (P.L. 105-
285) and the welfare reform law (P.L.104-193).
    The Education OPTIONS Act would retain the Gun Free Schools 
Act with minor changes. It would eliminate the section that 
requires the Secretary of Education to disseminate policy that 
guides the implementation of the act and its connection to 
IDEA. H.R. 4141 would incorporate the Gun Free Schools Act into 
the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act. Additionally, it would 
codify the current practice of exempting home schools from the 
act, by stating that the term ``school'' does not include a 
home school.
    The Committee accepted two amendments during mark up of 
H.R. 4141 that allow school personnel greater discretion in 
disciplining students with disabilities. The first amendment 
offered by Representative Charlie Norwood (R-GA) would allow 
school personnel to discipline, as they would a non-disabled 
student, a disabled student who brings a weapon to school. The 
second amendment offered by Representative Jim Talent (R-MO) 
would allow school personnel the same discretion to discipline 
students with disabilities who have illegal drugs at school or 
who commit an aggravated assault while at school. Both 
amendments allow school personnel to cease providing 
educational services if they choose to do so and if state law 
does not require that educational services continue.
    The Committee accepted three gun amendments. The first 
amendment would allow local educational agencies that receive 
Safe and Drug-Free Schools funds and have a high rate of 
expulsions of students for possession of a firearm at school to 
use those funds to study the effectiveness of promoting the 
benefits of child safety locks for firearms. The second 
amendment would require the National Center on Education 
Statistics to collect data on drug use by youth and on firearm 
related injuries and fatalities, data on the relationship 
between the victims and perpetrators, the demographic 
characteristics of victims and perpetrators, and the type and 
characteristic of the firearm used in the incident. The third 
amendment would allow local educational agencies that receive 
Safe and Drug-Free Schools funds and have a high rate of 
expulsions of students for possession of a firearm, to develop 
a plan with local law enforcement agencies to protect students 
and school employees against gun violence, which may include 
the promotion of the benefits of child safety locks for 
firearms.
    The state level programs under the combined Safe and Drug-
Free Schools program and 21st Century Community Learning 
Centers program would be authorized at $1.033 billion and the 
national activities would be authorized at $20 million. This 
represents what Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 21st Century 
Learning Centers currently receive for FY 2000.
            Tech for success
    In 1995 federal spending in the area of education 
technology amounted to a total of $52.6 million for a handful 
of initiatives. By FY 2000, this amount had grown to over $3 
billion (including discounts from the universal service fund 
under the E-rate program).
    Unfortunately, despite the significant amount of funds that 
have been spent on education technology over the past half 
decade, little has been learned about what works, what doesn't 
and how, if at all, technology is actually going to result in 
improving education in this nation. More and more education 
professionals are beginning to question whether computers 
actually increase student achievement.
    To help make sure that the next five years of federal 
investment in education technology will bear more fruit than 
that of the past half decade, the Committee has made several 
significant changes in H.R. 4141 to the current Title III 
technology programs under the ESEA. One of the most significant 
changes is the consolidation of eight existing programs under 
Title III, including the Challenge Fund, Challenge Grants, Star 
Schools, Software Development Program, Preparing Tomorrow's 
Teachers, Community Technology Centers, the Secretary 
Leadership Fund, and the Middle Schools Teachers Training 
program. At least 95 percent of these consolidated funds will 
go directly to states--a change from current law under which 
the secretary of education retains 42 percent for national 
activities and discretionary grants. With a single technology 
program, schools will no longer have to submit multiple grant 
applications to obtain education technology funding. In 
addition, the funds will no longer be segmented so that 
comprehensive education technology strategies will be easier to 
implement.
    With the funds provided under this title, schools will also 
have the ability to focus on projects and initiatives which 
best meet their particular needs within a framework established 
by states. This recognizes the fact that every school district 
has different needs. While some schools have just begun to 
acquire computers, others will choose to focus these funds 
solely on ensuring teachers have the skills and support 
necessary to effectively use technology. This is why the 
Committee believes the flexibility provided under Tech-for-
Success is so important because it recognizes these differing 
needs.
            Ready-to-Learn Television Program and the 
                    Telecommunications Demonstration Project
    The Ready-To-Learn Television program authorizes the 
secretary of education to award grants or enter into contracts 
or cooperative agreements with nonprofit entities (including 
public telecommunications entities) to develop, produce, and 
distribute educational and instructional television programming 
and support materials for preschool and elementary school 
children and their parents. Dragon Tales and Between the Lions 
are two examples of Ready-To-Learn Television programs.
    The Committee has made several minor modifications to the 
Ready-To-Learn Television program. These modifications 
acknowledge and encourage a more aggressive approach to 
obtaining ancillary rights on the part of grantees in the hopes 
of further leveraging federal dollars and providing for the 
transition to digital programming. However, in making these 
changes, the Committee was careful to protect the program's 
original mission of developing high quality, educational 
television programming for preschool and elementary school 
children.
    The Telecommunications Demonstration Project for 
Mathematics authorizes the secretary of education to make 
grants to a nonprofit telecommunications entity or partnership, 
for the purpose of carrying out a national telecommunications-
based program (i.e. PBS' Mathline) to improve the teaching of 
mathematics.
    Under H.R. 4141, the Telecommunications Demonstration 
Project for Mathematics is renamed the Telecommunications 
Program and the secretary is allowed, but not required, to 
award grants for the purpose of carrying out a national 
telecommunications-based program to improve the teaching of 
core academic subjects and/or for the purpose of developing, 
producing and distributing digital educational and 
instructional programming designed for use by elementary and 
secondary school students.
    With the advent of digital technology comes the ability to 
produce multi-dimensional, educational and instructional 
programming that can increase student academic achievement. The 
Committee adopted an amendment offered by Representative Ernie 
Fletcher (R-KY) during the markup in the hopes of encouraging 
the development of such programming under the 
Telecommunications Program.
    Specifically, the Fletcher amendment allows the secretary 
to issue three-year competitive grants to local public 
television stations that enter into multi-year collaborative 
arrangements for digital content development with state 
educational agencies, local educational agencies, institutions 
of higher education, businesses, or other agencies or 
organizations. Eligible local public television stations must 
also contribute a 100 percent non-federal funding match.
    H.R. 4141 also includes a provision requiring that those 
schools choosing to receive federal funds under this title for 
Internet access have in place, on computers purchased with such 
funds and that are accessible by minors, technology to filter 
or block obscenity, child pornography, and material that is 
harmful to minors.
            Innovative Education Programs
    Title IV of H.R. 4141 amends Title VI of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act, which authorizes the Innovative 
Education Program Strategies program. Innovative Education 
Program Strategies is the only K-12 education block grant 
program contained within the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act. It is the only formula program that allows recipients to 
use funds to benefit any and all student populations, in any 
and all schools. In an effort to increase local control and 
flexibility of funds under the Innovative Education Program 
Strategies, H.R. 4141 adds additional ``uses of funds'' to 
current law to broaden the scope of the program for local 
educational agencies.
    The bill provides funding for many activities, including: 
(1) professional development activities and the hiring of 
teachers, including activities consistent with H.R. 1995, the 
Teacher Empowerment Act; (2) education reform projects that 
provide single gender schools and classrooms, as long as 
comparable educational opportunities are offered for students 
of both sexes; (3) community service programs that train and 
mobilize young people to measurably strengthen their 
communities through nonviolence, responsibility, compassion, 
respect, and moral courage; (4) curriculum-based youth 
entrepreneurship education programs withdemonstrated records of 
empowering disadvantaged youth with applied math, entrepreneurial, and 
other analytical skills; (5) activities to promote consumer, economic, 
and personal finance education, such as disseminating and encouraging 
the best practices for teaching the basic principles of economics and 
promoting the concept of achieving financial literacy through the 
teaching of personal financial management skills, including the basic 
principles involved with earning, spending, saving, and investing; and 
(6) activities to expand and improve school-based mental health 
services, including early identification, assessment, and direct 
individual or group counseling services provided to students, parents, 
and school personnel by qualified school-based mental health services 
personnel.
    H.R. 4141 includes language to send 100 percent of any new 
funding over the FY 2000 appropriation to the local level. This 
change to current law will result in more funds being sent to 
the school district and classroom levels. In addition, H.R. 
4141 limits state administrative costs to four percent.
            Fund for the Improvement of Education
    Title V, Part A of H.R. 4141 amends Part A of Title X of 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act relating to the Fund 
for the Improvement of Education, school counseling programs, 
character education, and smaller learning communities. The bill 
explicitly prohibits the development and implementation of a 
national test without specific authorization; explicitly 
prohibits federal endorsement, approval, or sanction of any 
curriculum designed for use in elementary or secondary schools; 
and deletes all references to the National Education Goals and 
the Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Part A of Title V of H.R. 
4141 consolidates and streamlines the applications process for 
all applicants under the Fund for the Improvement of Education; 
authorizes performance rewards for states that make significant 
progress in eliminating achievement gaps; streamlines the 
counseling program requirements to allow local educational 
agencies greater flexibility in creating and implementing 
programs and improves the ability of local educational agencies 
to implement demonstration projects; streamlines the Character 
Education Program to allow local educational agencies greater 
flexibility in creating and implementing programs; streamlines 
the Smaller Learning Communities Program to encourage the 
development and implementation of activities in high schools 
where students receive more individualized attention and 
support; authorizes an independent study for effective 
professional development activities for mathematics and science 
teachers; and repeals the Scholar Athlete Competitions; 
National Student and Parent Mock Election; and the Model 
Projects programs from the Fund for the Improvement of 
Education.
    Specifically, H.R. 4141 gives the secretary of education 
authority to set aside funds from the Fund for the Improvement 
of Education to provide reward funds to states that improve 
student academic achievement and narrow achievement gaps under 
H.R. 2300, the Academic Achievement for All Act (Straight A's).
    With respect to character education, the Committee has 
streamlined the Title X Character Education program to allow 
local educational agencies greater flexibility in creating and 
implementing programs. H.R. 4141 removes the limit of ten 
character education grants per year and the maximum award of $1 
million to states, and instead authorizes the secretary of 
education to make up to five-year grants to states, local 
educational agencies, or a consortia of educational agencies 
for the design and implementation of character education 
programs.
            Charter Schools
    Title V, Part C of H.R. 4141 amends Part C of Title X of 
the Elementary and Secondary Act that authorizes assistance to 
public charter schools. The bill clarifies that the definition 
of a charter school is, among other things, a public school 
that admits students on the basis of a lottery or another non-
discriminatory approach consistent with state law, if more 
students apply for admission than can be accommodated. It also 
authorizes $145 million for the program in FY 2000 and such 
sums as may be necessary for FY 2001 through FY 2005.
            Civic Education
    Title V, Part D of H.R. 4141 amends Part F of Title X of 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which authorizes 
civic education activities. The Committee amendment 
incorporates parts of H.R. 3195, the Education for Democracy 
Act introduced by Representative Dale Kildee (D-MI) and 
Representative Michael Castle (R-DE). The purpose of H.R. 3195 
is to improve the quality of civics and government education by 
educating students about the history and principles of the 
Constitution of the United States, and to foster civic 
competence and responsibility. H.R. 4141 supports the Center 
for Civic Education and its education program that encourages: 
(1) instruction on the principles of our Constitutional 
democracy; (2) the history of the Constitution and the Bill of 
Rights; (3) congressional hearings simulations; and (4) annual 
competitions of simulated Congressional hearings for secondary 
school students. In addition, the bill provides for advanced 
training of teachers about the Constitution of the United 
States and our political system.
            Ellender Fellowship Program (Close Up Foundation)
    Title V, Part E of H.R. 4141 amends Part G of Title X of 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. An amendment was 
adopted during Committee mark-up to restore the Allen J. 
Ellender Fellowship Program. This program, administered by the 
private, non-profit Close Up Foundation, provides financial aid 
to enable low-income students, their teachers, older Americans, 
recent immigrants, and children of migrant parents to come to 
Washington, D.C. to study the operations of the three branches 
of government. Activities include attending seminars on 
government and current events, and meeting with government 
leaders.
            General Provisions
    Title VI of H.R. 4141 amends the general provisions found 
in Title XIV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
(ESEA) and which affect all ESEA programs. The bill adds 
definitions for ``family literacy services'' and 
``scientifically based research;'' provides flexibility to 
combine administrative funds of all ESEA programs; permits up 
to 20 percent of a school district's administrative funds to be 
used for legal expenses in defending certain lawsuits; allows 
states and school districts to submit single consolidated plans 
for all ESEA programs; continues authority of the secretary of 
education to waive burdensome regulations; continues authority 
ofprivate school students and staff to receive services under 
ESEA programs; continues the prohibition upon the federal government 
from controlling, mandating or directing curriculum; prohibits funds 
from being used to operate a program of contraceptive distribution at 
schools; prohibits funding of sex education in schools unless such 
programs are age appropriate and emphasize abstinence; ensures that 
voluntary prayer is protected; protects against federal control over 
home schools; includes findings regarding religious memorials and 
memorial services on campus; includes a sense of Congress on reducing 
the reading deficit; includes a sense of Congress on science 
assessments; and repeals the National Education Goals Panel, the 
National Education Goals, the International Education program, and the 
Coordinated Services program.

5. H.R. 3616, the Impact Aid Reauthorization Act of 2000

    Impact Aid is authorized under Title VIII of the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act. It is the only elementary and 
secondary education program that is not forward funded. The 
Impact Aid program is unlike any other elementary and secondary 
education program. Impact Aid is truly a ``federal 
responsibility.'' It provides funds to schools that have lost 
taxable property due to federal ownership, such as the presence 
of military installations, tribal lands, low-rent housing, or 
national parks.
            Hearings on Impact Aid
    On March 17, 1999, the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 
Youth, and Families held a hearing entitled, ``Impact Aid: 
Keeping the Federal Promise.'' Witnesses at the hearing 
included Members of Congress representing congressional 
districts heavily impacted by a federal presence and officials 
from school districts receiving Impact Aid.
            H.R. 3616, the Impact Aid Reauthorization Act of 2000
    On February 10, 2000, Rep. Robin Hayes (R-NC) introduced 
H.R. 3616, the Impact Aid Reauthorization Act of 2000. On 
February 16, 2000, the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
considered H.R. 3616 and favorably reported the bill by voice 
vote. On May 15, 2000, H.R. 3616 passed the House of 
Representatives under suspension of the rules by voice vote. A 
modified version of H.R. 3616 was included in the conference 
agreement to H.R. 4205, the Floyd D. Spence National Defense 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2001. The conference 
agreement passed the House of Representatives on October 11, 
2000 by a vote of 382-31 and the U. S. Senate on October 12 by 
a vote of 90-3. It was signed into law (Public Law 106-398) on 
October 30, 2000.
    As enacted into law, H.R. 3616 updates and improves the 
Impact Aid program to address issues brought to the committee's 
attention by school leaders and educators around the country. 
The bill makes several changes to the Impact Aid program to 
help ensure assistance is provided to local educational 
agencies in a fair and equitable manner. It adjusts the funding 
formula for payments for federal property removed from the tax 
rolls, and incorporates payments for heavily impacted local 
educational agencies into the basic payment structure. H.R. 
3616 also addresses issues related to the privatization of 
military housing and housing on Indian lands, modifies the 
construction program, and provides for local educational 
agencies to be notified if they miss the deadline for filing 
applications for payments. In addition, the bill provides for 
the needs of small, poor school districts by establishing a 
funding floor for qualifying local educational agencies.

                          F. EDUCATION REFORM

1. H.R. 800, Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 (Ed-Flex)

    Since 1994, authority has been provided in federal law for 
a limited number of state educational agencies to waive a wide 
range of federal education program requirements for any or all 
local educational agencies or schools within their states. This 
is commonly known as ``Ed-Flex.'' Ed-Flex essentially provides 
greater state and local flexibility in using federal education 
funds to support locally designed, comprehensive school 
improvement efforts. Several types of requirements may not be 
waived under Ed-Flex, including most requirements related to 
civil rights, allocation of funds, fiscal accountability, or 
such other priorities as parental involvement or participation 
by pupils attending private schools. The local educational 
agency or school applications for waivers must include the 
goals and expected outcomes of the relevant programs, as well 
as information on how success in meeting such goals and 
outcomes will be measured.
            Hearings on Education Flexibility
    On February 25, 1999, the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 
Youth and Families held a hearing entitled ``Putting 
Performance First: Hearing on ``Ed-Flex'' and it's Role in 
Improving Student Performance and Reducing Bureaucracy.'' The 
hearing focused upon the issues surrounding the Education 
Flexibility Partnership Demonstration Act. Witnesses were 
invited to share their views on how Ed-Flex has worked in their 
participating states, including the numbers and types of 
waivers granted to their local school districts, and especially 
how Ed-Flex has worked at the local level. The hearing also 
focused upon the General Accounting Office's (GAO) report ``Ed-
Flex States Vary in Implementation of Waiver Process,'' 
released in November 1998.
    In addition, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations held more than thirty hearings around the 
country during the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses. 
Testimony from those hearings consistently called for Congress 
to increase flexibility in federal programs, and to make 
federal programs work better at the local level. During the 
106th Congress the Committee undertook a number of actions to 
provide state and local educational agencies with flexibility 
tools in order to enable them to tailor federal programs to 
meet the needs of their students. The first of those steps was 
the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999.
            H.R. 800, The Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999
    On February 23, 1999, Subcommittee Chairman Mike Castle (R-
DE) and Representative Tim Roemer (D-IN) introduced H.R. 800, 
``The Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999,'' with 28 
cosponsors. H.R. 800 removed the 12 state limitation as well as 
removed the demonstration nature of the Ed-Flex program. Under 
the bill, all 50 states would be eligible to apply for this 
authority. There was widespread support for such a change. The 
National Governors Association, Republican Governors 
Association, Democratic Governors Association, National School 
Boards Association, American Association of School 
Administrators, Chamber ofCommerce, Association of American 
Educators, National Association of State Boards of Education, and the 
National Education Association all endorsed H.R. 800 and extending Ed-
Flex authority to all 50 states.
    On March 3, 1999, the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce considered H.R. 800. The bill was favorably reported, 
as amended, by a vote of 33-9. H.R. 800 passed the House on 
March 11, 1999, by a vote of 330-90. The Senate passed S. 280 
the same day by a vote of 98-1. On April 15, 1999, the House 
and Senate reported H.R. 800, as amended, from a joint House/
Senate conference committee. The president signed the 
conference report to H.R. 800 on April 29, 1999. It is Public 
Law 106-25.

2. H.R. 2300, The Academic Achievement for All Act (Straight A's)

            Hearings on flexibility, accountability, and results
    During the 106th Congress, several hearings were held on 
the issue of whether to significantly increase education 
flexibility and accountability in federal education programs. 
The Committee heard a consistent message from the state and 
local levels that if the federal government would free them 
from the constraints of the current categorical funding 
structure of federal programs, they would be willing to be held 
accountable for producing improvements in academic achievement.
    On April 19, 1999 in Chicago, Illinois, the Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations held a field hearing entitled 
``Chicago Education Reforms and the Importance of Flexibility 
in Federal Education Programs.'' The hearing focused on the 
Chicago Public School system and its successful reforms, which 
have produced rising scores, better attendance rates, and 
higher graduation numbers. Additionally, the hearing addressed 
how Congress can increase the amount of flexibility available 
to school districts such as Chicago.
    On May 20, 1999, the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce held a hearing. The hearing focused on issues raised 
by the Academic Achievement for All proposal (the Straight A's 
Act) and the perspectives of people involved in education at 
the state and local levels.
    On June 9, 1999, the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth 
and Families held a hearing entitled ``Academic 
Accountability.'' The hearing focused on various accountability 
policies implemented by states and school districts over the 
past decade, how these systems have helped to improve student 
achievement, and how these systems are being implemented in 
different ways around the country.
    As earlier mentioned, during the 106th Congress the 
Committee undertook a number of actions to provide state and 
local educational agencies with flexibility tools in order to 
enable them to tailor federal programs to meet the needs of 
their students. The first of those steps was the Education 
Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999. Ed-Flex, however, is an 
important flexibility tool, but not sufficient to meet the 
needs of those states and districts on the cutting edge of 
flexibility and accountability. Consequently, the Committee 
took the next step, which was to pass H.R. 2300, the Academic 
Achievement for All Act.
    On June 22, 1999, Representative Bill Goodling (R-PA) 
introduced H.R. 2300, the Academic Achievement for All Act 
(Straight A's Act). The Academic Achievement for All Act 
(Straight A's) is similar to the concept of charter schools: 
grant freedom from regulations and process-oriented 
requirements in exchange for accountability for producing 
results. Under Straight A's, Washington assumes the role of 
shareholder, not CEO of the nation's education enterprise. 
Rather than micromanaging the day-to-day uses of federal money, 
it lets states manage their schools and dollars as they see fit 
in return for an agreed upon return on the federal investment. 
This has been demonstrated to be effective in charter schools, 
in states like Texas, and in cities like Chicago, where 
flexibility to innovate combined with high standards of 
achievement has produced significant gains in achievement.
            H.R. 2300, the Academic Achievement for All Act (Straight 
                    A's)
    The purpose of Straight A's is to untie the hands of those 
states that have their accountability systems in place, in 
exchange for required results. It goes beyond Ed-Flex to more 
effectively address the flexibility needs of the states. States 
have the option of participating in Straight A's or staying 
with the current arrangement of separate categorical funding 
sources. Unlike many recent attempts by Congress to place 
accountability requirements into federal programs such as Title 
I, accountability in Straight A's is being coupled with fiscal 
and legal autonomy and flexibility, which allows reforms to be 
implemented quickly and efficiently at the state and local 
levels.
    Straight A's gives states and local school districts the 
option of establishing a five-year performance agreement with 
the secretary of education. If states do not choose this 
option, they would continue to receive funds under the current 
categorical program requirements. Up to ten states may 
participate. Local school districts also have the option of 
establishing a performance agreement if their state does not 
participate. Under approved agreements, states would be able to 
combine funds from a few or all of the federal K-12 education 
programs they administer at the state level. In exchange for 
this flexibility, participating states would be held to strict 
accountability requirements for improving student achievement. 
States that do not substantially meet those goals would be 
required to revert to the categorical, regulated program 
structure and could potentially lose administrative funds.
    The accountability provided for in Straight A's has worked 
well in cities and states around the nation. Unlike many recent 
attempts to put more accountability requirements into federal 
programs, such as Title I, accountability in H.R. 2300 has been 
coupled with fiscal and legal autonomy and flexibility, which 
allows reforms to be implemented quickly and efficiently at the 
state and local levels.
    The Committee on Education and the Workforce considered 
H.R. 2300 with an amendment in the nature of a substitute on 
October 13, 1999. The Committee on Education and the Workforce, 
favorably reported H.R. 2300 to the House by a vote of 26 to 19 
on October 13, 1999. H.R. 2300 passed the House by a vote of 
213-208 on October 21, 1999. Similar provisions were included 
in S. 2 in the Senate. S. 2 was introduced on January 19, 1999. 
The Senate began considerationof S. 2 in May 2000. After 
several days of debate, the bill was set aside. The Senate has taken no 
further action.

                              G. TRAINING

1. H.R. 3073, the Fathers Count Act of 1999

    H.R. 3073, introduced by Representative Nancy Johnson (R-
CT), provides grants for projects designed to promote 
responsible fatherhood. In addition, it includes amendments of 
interest to this Committee related to the Welfare-to-Work 
program established as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
    Specifically, the legislation establishes a fatherhood 
grant program to promote marriage, parenting, and employment 
building skills. In addition, it instructs the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services to award a grant to a nationally 
recognized, nonprofit fatherhood promotion organization to 
develop and promote marriage and responsible fatherhood, 
including a national clearinghouse to disseminate information 
regarding media campaigns and fatherhood programs.
    With respect to amendments to the Welfare-to-Work program, 
the legislation includes amendments to provide more flexibility 
to local authorities about who may be served under this 
program; ensures that non-custodial fathers receiving these 
services will better meet their responsibilities with respect 
to their non-custodial children; provides more flexibility to 
local authorities in the types of services that may be provided 
to individuals under this program; simplifies the current 
reporting requirements under welfare-to-work; and promotes 
better coordination between welfare agencies and the job 
training/employment system.
    The amendments related to the Welfare-to-Work program are 
also included as part of H.R. 3172, the Welfare-to-Work 
Amendments of 1999, introduced by Chairman Bill Goodling (R-
PA), which passed by voice vote in the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce on November 3, 1999.
    On September 14, 1999, H.R. 3073, the Fathers Count Act was 
referred to the Committee on Ways and Means and in addition to 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce. On September 28, 
the Ways and Means Committee reported the legislation, as 
amended. On November 5, 1999 the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce discharged the legislation. On November 10, 1999, the 
bill was passed in the House by a vote of 328 to 93.
    An amended version of the Welfare-to-Work amendments was 
later included as part of the FY 2000 Departments of Labor, 
Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-113).

2. H.R. 3172, the Welfare-to-Work Amendments of 1999

    H.R. 3172, the Welfare-to-Work Amendments of 1999 was 
introduced by Chairman Bill Goodling (R-PA) and referred to the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce. On November 3, 1999 
the bill was considered by the full Committee and passed by 
voice vote.
    An amended version of the Welfare-to-Work Amendments was 
later included as part of the FY 2000 Departments of Labor, 
Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-113).
    H.R. 3172 amends the Welfare-to-Work program established as 
part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 to give greater 
flexibility in the use of Welfare-to-Work funds to enable 
states and localities to take full advantage of the funds 
already provided for this program. Specifically, the bill 
provides more flexibility to local authorities who may be 
served under this program; ensures that non-custodial fathers 
receiving these services will better meet their 
responsibilities with respect to their non-custodial children; 
provides more flexibility to local authorities in the types of 
services that may be provided to individuals under this 
program, and simplifies the current reporting requirements 
under welfare-to-work; and promotes better coordination between 
welfare agencies and the job training/employment system.

3. H.R. 4216, the Portable Skills Training Act

    On April 6, 2000, Representative George Radanovich (R-CA) 
introduced H.R. 4216, the Portable Skills Training Act. This 
bill creates a new category of training known as ``portable 
skills training'' which provides an incentive for employers to 
train individuals in skills that may be carried from one job to 
another.
    On October 3, 2000 the legislation, as amended, was 
considered in the House of Representatives under the suspension 
of the rules and agreed to by voice vote.
    The final version did not establish a new category of 
training, but instead amended the current definition of 
``customized training'' under the Workforce Investment Act of 
1998 to allow employers to be reimbursed for more than 50 
percent of the costs associated with the training of 
participants in this program. The final version also changed 
the name of the bill to the ``Customized Training Flexibility 
Act.''
    In addition, two other amendments to the Workforce 
Investment Act were added. The first provides that an eligible 
youth under the act may be one who has been determined to be 
eligible for free meals under the national school lunch program 
(or one who is a low-income individual, as under current law). 
The second provides that an eligible adult or dislocated worker 
participating in training (except for on-the-job training) 
under the act shall be deemed to be in training with the 
approval of the state agency for unemployment compensation 
purposes.

4. H.R. 4402, the Training and Education for American Workers Act of 
        2000

    On May 9, 2000, Representative Bill Goodling (R-PA) 
introduced H.R. 4402, the Training and Education for American 
Workers Act of 2000, to amend the American Competitiveness and 
Workforce Investment Act (ACWIA) of 1998. This act directs the 
use of certain funds deposited into the H-1B Nonimmigrant 
Petitioner Account.
    On May 10, 2000, the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce assembled to consider H.R. 4402. An amendment in the 
nature of a substitute offered by Chairman Bill Goodling (R-PA) 
was adopted by voice vote, and the bill, as amended, by voice 
vote.
    This legislation reinforces the view that any job training 
funds provided under the Immigration and Nationality Act be 
distributed through the U.S. Department of Labor and the local 
workforce system established under the Workforce Investment 
Act. In doing so, the legislation also strengthens the current 
job training provisions to ensure these funds are used 
effectively to increase the number of workers in the United 
States with the skills necessary to be employed in the high 
skilled, high wage jobs which are being filled through H-1B 
workers--or more often, simply not being filled.
    H.R. 4402 also directs the Secretary of Labor to transfer 
25 percent of the 56.3 percent of funds to the Secretary of 
Education to carry out a loan forgiveness program for 
mathematics, science and kindergarten through third grade 
reading teachers. Under current law, no funds under this part 
are reserved for the purpose of student loan forgiveness.
    The Secretary of Education, using funds described above, is 
to carry out a program of assuming the obligation to repay a 
loan made, insured, or guaranteed under part B of Title IV of 
the Higher Education Act of 1965 or part D of such title 
(excluding loans made under section 428B and 428C of such act 
or comparable loans made under part D of such title) for any 
new borrower after October 1, 1998, who meets specific 
criteria.
    An amended version of the provisions included as part of 
H.R. 4402, not including the provision of funds for student 
loan forgiveness for teachers, was included as part of S. 2045, 
the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 
2000, introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT). This 
legislation passed the Senate by a vote of 96 to 1 on October 
3, 2000 and passed the House by voice vote, on the same day. On 
November 17, 2000 the President signed S. 2045, and it became 
Public Law 106-313.

5. H.R. 4678, the Child Support Distribution Act of 2000

    H.R. 4678, the Child Support Distribution Act of 2000, was 
introduced by Representative Nancy Johnson (R-CT). On June 15, 
2000, the legislation was referred to the Committee on Ways and 
Means, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary and 
the Committee on the Education and the Workforce.
    The items of jurisdictional interest to the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce relate to inclusion of grants to 
promote fatherhood, including the promotion of fatherhood 
through the provision of employment and training programs. In 
addition, the bill amends the Welfare-to-Work Grants Program 
established under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
    Specifically, the legislation establishes a fatherhood 
grant program to promote marriage, parenting, and employment 
building skills. In addition, it instructs the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services to award a grant to a nationally 
recognized, nonprofit fatherhood promotion organization to 
develop and promote marriage and responsible fatherhood, 
including a national clearinghouse to disseminate information 
regarding media campaigns and fatherhood programs.
    In addition, it amends the Welfare-to-Work Grants Program 
to: (1) correct errors in conforming amendments in the Welfare-
to-Work and Child Support Amendments of 1999; (2) repeal the 
set-aside of welfare-to-work funds for successful performance 
bonus; and (3) reduce FY 1999 appropriations for the Welfare-
to-Work Grants Program.
    On July 19, 2000, the Ways and Means Committee passed H.R. 
4678, as amended, by voice vote. On July 26, 2000 the Committee 
on Education and the Workforce and the Committee on the 
Judiciary, discharged the legislation and it was placed on the 
Union Calendar. On September 7, 2000, the legislation passed 
the House by a vote of 405 to 18. On September 8, 2000, the 
bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Finance.

                          H. SPECIAL EDUCATION

H.R. 4055, the IDEA Full Funding Act

    Chairman Bill Goodling (R-PA) introduced the IDEA Full 
Funding Act, H.R. 4055, on March 22, 2000. The IDEA Full 
Funding Act of 2000 authorizes an appropriation for IDEA Part B 
(State Grants) for FY2001 through FY2010. The authorization for 
FY2001 is $7 billion, an increase of $2 billion over FY 2000, 
which is consistent with the House Budget Resolution for 
FY2001. H.R. 4055 authorizes an increase of $2 billion for each 
fiscal year so that by FY2010 the Part B appropriation is 
authorized at $25 billion. According to Department of Education 
estimates of student counts and national average per pupil 
expenditures, $25 billion would ensure that the federal 
government's commitment in IDEA Part B to fund 40 percent of 
the national average per pupil expenditure to assist states and 
local educational agencies with the excess costs of educating 
children with disabilities would be met.
    The Committee on Education and the Workforce favorably 
reported the bill by voice vote on April 12, 2000. H.R. 4055 
passed the House by a vote of 421-3 on May 3, 2000. An 
identical bill has been introduced in the Senate (S. 2341). It 
was favorably reported without amendment by the Senate 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions on 
September 20, 2000.

                     I. APPROPRIATIONS LEGISLATION

H.R. 3424, FY 2000 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, 
        Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-
        113)

            Higher education
    H.R. 3424 is a bill that makes appropriations for the 
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education 
and Related Agencies for fiscal year 2000. H.R. 3424 was 
incorporated by reference in the conference report for H.R. 
3194 that was signed into law on November 29,1999. It is Public 
Law 106-113. H.R. 3424 included three higher education provisions under 
the jurisdiction of the Committee.
    First, the bill extended the term of the Web-Based 
Education Commission from six months to twelve months and 
increased the membership of the commission from 14 to 16 
members. After the first meeting of the commission, the members 
of the commission realized that they would need more than six 
months to complete their work and submit a report to Congress. 
In addition, the members of the commission concluded that the 
addition of two Members of Congress to the commission would be 
beneficial to the work of the commission. As a result, an 
amendment was included in H.R. 3424 to extend the term of the 
commission to twelve months and to increase the commission 
membership by adding two Members of Congress, one appointed by 
the Chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee in 
the House and one appointed by the Chairman of the Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee in the Senate.
    The second provision amended Section 5 of the Y2K Act (15 
U.S.C. 6604) and protected institutions of higher education 
from punitive damages in a Y2K action. The original language of 
the Y2K Act protected only public institutions of higher 
education from punitive damages in a Y2K action. When this fact 
was brought to the Committee's attention, it was decided that 
all institutions of higher education should be treated 
similarly for purposes of Y2K actions. The amendment to the Y2K 
Act accomplished this purpose.
    The third provision clarified that institutions of higher 
education are required to distribute voter registration 
materials to students only in the event of general and special 
elections for federal office and for elections for governor or 
other chief executives within a state. During consideration of 
the Higher Education Amendments of 1998, a provision was 
adopted to encourage institutions of higher education to 
provide voter registration materials to their students. The 
provision required institutions of higher education to 
distribute voter registration materials for general elections 
for federal office, off-year gubernatorial elections, every 
Congressional and presidential primary and all party caucuses 
or selection processes for national conventions. This overly 
broad requirement was not consistent with the intent of the 
Committee and contrary to the Committee's goal of reducing 
excessive and costly burdens on institutions of higher 
education. The provision included in H.R. 3424 clarified the 
Committee's intent to require institutions of higher education 
to distribute voter registration materials only before general 
elections for federal office and any off-year gubernatorial 
elections.
            Class size reduction
    H.R. 3424 makes appropriations for the Departments of 
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act for FY 2000. H.R. 3424 was 
incorporated by reference in the conference report for H.R. 
3194 that was signed into law on November 29, 1999. It is 
Public Law 106-113. H.R. 3424 included $1.3 billion to extend 
the class size reduction act initiative established as part of 
the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 1999. In addition to 
extending funds, H.R. 3424 makes several changes to the 
original program:
    Funds may no longer be used to hire unqualified teachers. 
Teachers hired under this act must be certified (including 
alternative certification) by the state in which they are 
employed. They must have at least a baccalaureate degree, and 
demonstrate the teaching skills and knowledge required to teach 
in their subject areas.
    All teachers hired last year under this program must also 
be fully qualified within one year after this bill is signed 
into law. Emergency certified teachers may no longer be hired.
    The percentage of funds that schools can use for upgrading 
the skills of all their current teachers increases from 15 
percent to 25 percent, for training teachers and other 
professional development activities, instead of hiring new 
teachers.
    Schools with a major teacher quality problem--with 10 
percent or more of their teachers uncertified by the state--can 
request a waiver through the ``Ed-Flex'' program to use all of 
their funding for improving the quality of uncertified 
teachers.
    Rural schools not receiving enough money to hire a new 
teacher will now be able to use their funds for professional 
development, or co-mingle federal dollars with local dollars to 
hire a new teacher.
    States that have already set a goal of 20 or fewer students 
in a class will have more flexibility to fund professional 
development of existing teachers. This is a significant change 
from the 18-to-1 student-teacher ratio required in current law.
    Under the legislation, parents have the right to know the 
professional qualifications of their children's teachers. In 
addition, states and school districts receiving these funds 
must report to parents on the percentage of classes in core 
academic subjects that are taught by fully qualified teachers, 
as well as on progress in reducing class size.
    Special education teachers can now be hired with these 
funds to teach in mainstream classrooms with regular teachers. 
This corrects a major problem with the administration's 
interpretation of the current program.
            Public school choice
    During the 106th Congress the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce took many steps to provide parents with more 
options in ensuring that their children obtain a high quality 
education.
    First, H.R. 2, the Student Results Act of 1999 included a 
provision to provide a right of public school choice for 
students attending low-performing (schools identified for 
school improvement) Title I schools. A school is considered in 
school improvement if it fails to make adequate yearly progress 
under Title I guidelines over two consecutive years. 
Specifically, school districts must develop and implement a 
public school choice plan to provide all enrolled students who 
attend a low-performing Title I school with the option to 
transfer to another public school, or public charter school, 
within the local school district. Chairman Bill Goodling (R-PA) 
introduced H.R. 2 on February 11, 1999. H.R. 2, as amended, was 
reported to the House of Representatives bythe Committee on 
Education and the Workforce by a vote of 42-6, on October 13, 1999. On 
October 21, 1999, the House passed H.R. 2, as amended, on October 21, 
1999, by a vote of 358-67. The Senate began consideration of its 
companion bill, S. 2, in May 2000. After several days of debate, the 
bill was laid aside. The Senate has taken no further action.
    Second, a similar provision was included in H.R. 3424, the 
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY 2000. 
Specifically, the bill included a provision to provide $134 
million for local educational agencies that have Title I 
schools in school improvement to provide public school choice 
to students in such schools. H.R. 3424 was incorporated into 
the conference report for H.R. 3194 that was signed into law on 
November 29, 1999. It is Public Law 106-113.

2. H.R. 4577, FY2001 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, 
        Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act

    H.R. 4577, the FY2001 Departments of Labor, Health and 
Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Act became Public Law 106-554 on December 21, 2000.
            Higher education
    The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY 2001 
includes seven provisions related to the Higher Education Act 
of 1965. The first four provisions are taken directly from the 
Higher Education Technical Amendments of 2000, which passed the 
House on June 12, 2000.
    The first provision makes necessary changes to Section 415 
of the Higher Education Act of 1965, the Special Leveraging 
Educational Partnership Program. This provision clarifies that 
funds provided under the Special Leveraging Educational 
Partnership Program may not be used for administrative 
purposes. In addition, the provision clarifies that matching 
funds must come from new sources in order to leverage more 
state funding.
    The second provision amends Part A of Title IV of the 
Higher Education Act of 1965. It allows grantees receiving 
funding under the Student Support Services program within TRIO 
to use part of these funds for direct grant aid to needy 
students. A grant provided under this provision may not exceed 
the maximum appropriated Pell Grant, or be less than the 
minimum appropriated Pell Grant, for the current academic year. 
Grantees using funds for this purpose are required to match at 
least 33 percent of the funds used for grant aid in cash from 
non-federal sources. In addition, grantees may not use more 
than 20 percent of their grant amount for direct grant aid 
purposes.
    The third provision amends Section 435 of the Higher 
Education Act of 1965 with respect to cohort default rates. It 
extends the date for eliminating Historically Black Colleges 
and Universities (HBCU) from the loan programs due to high 
default rates from July 1, 2002 to July 1, 2004. HBCUs with 
cohort default rates in excess of 25 percent for three 
consecutive years are currently eligible for the student aid 
programs due to a statutory exemption that will expire on July 
1, 2002. In the 1998 Amendments, these institutions were 
required to provide default management plans to the secretary 
and hire third parties to assist in reducing their default 
rates by the July 1, 2002 date. For the academic year that 
begins July 1, 2002, the secretary will be looking at the 
cohort default rates for FY 97, FY 98 and FY 99. However, the 
management plans were not required until July 1, 1999, so they 
have no impact on FY 97 rates and only minimal impact on FY 98 
rates. The real effect of the management plans will not be 
evident until FY 99 and after. In order to give the plans time 
to work, the exemption should be set to expire on July 1, 2004. 
For that academic year, the secretary will look at cohort 
default rates for FY 99, FY 00 and FY 01 in determining 
eligibility.
    A fourth provision makes clarifying changes to language in 
the Higher Education Act related to certain legal issues that 
have arisen in student loan financing matters, particularly as 
a result of the use of a master promissory note in the student 
loan programs. The provision clarifies the method for 
perfecting security interests in student loans, as well as the 
method for establishing priority.
    A fifth provision modifies the process for appealing cohort 
default rate calculations by institutions of higher education. 
For fiscal years 1997 and 1998 cohort default rate 
calculations, an institution may retain eligibility for the 
Title IV student aid programs if they fail to timely appeal 
their cohort default rate so long as their failure is (i) 
substantially justified; (ii) based on a failure of the 
guaranty agency to correct erroneous data after a proper 
request; and (iii) the institution would have been eligible had 
the erroneous data been corrected.
    A sixth provision which was requested by the Department of 
the Treasury amends Section 439(r)(2) of the Higher Education 
Act of 1965 with respect to the rate of pay allowed for 
auditors hired by Treasury for the Office of Sallie Mae 
Oversight. This provision provides Treasury with the authority 
to offer an annual comparability rate in addition to base 
salary when hiring these auditors. The comparability rate would 
be based on the differential rates paid by the other banking 
regulatory agencies.
    The last provision addresses a problem posed by the pending 
elimination of 52-week Treasury bills. The department of the 
treasury has announced its intention to eliminate 52-week 
Treasury bills. That creates a problem in the student loan 
program because interest rates for Parent Loans to Students and 
Supplemental Loans for Students are reset every July 1 based on 
the last auction of 52-week bills prior to June 1st. To solve 
this problem, Treasury and the banking community recommended 
that the 1-year Constant Maturity Treasury rate be substituted 
for the 52-week Treasury bill.
            Family literacy
    A modified version of H.R. 3222, the Literacy Involves 
Families Together Act (LIFT), has been included in H.R. 4577, 
the FY2001 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. LIFT extends 
and enhances the Even Start Family Literacy Program and other 
federal education programs providing family literacy services. 
LIFT would greatly improve the quality of Even Start Family 
Literacy programs. LIFT requires Even Start projects to use 
instructional programs based on scientifically based research 
on reading, establishes qualifications for program instructors, 
ties local program objectives to state indicators of program 
quality, strengthens evaluations of local programs andtheir use 
in program improvement, and authorizes research to find the most 
effective way of improving literacy among adults with reading 
difficulties. The bill also changes the name of the Even Start Family 
Literacy Program to the William F. Goodling Even Start Family Literacy 
Program in honor of Bill Goodling (R-PA), the author of the Even Start 
program.
            Public school choice
    Public school choice under the Title I program has been 
included in H. R. 4577, the Departments of Labor, Health and 
Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act for FY2001. The language includes a 
requirement that all school districts receiving funds under 
Title I Part A shall provide students in low performing Title I 
schools with the option to transfer to another public school or 
public charter school in the school district, unless prohibited 
by state or local law. Local educational agencies located 
within states that qualify for the small state minimum under 
Title I Part A are not required to comply with this 
requirement, but may comply if they choose.
            Rural education
    Representative Bill Barrett (R-NE) introduced H.R. 2725, 
the Rural Education Initiative Act on August 5, 1999 as a means 
to address the special needs of small, rural schools. A similar 
version of H.R. 2725 was included as part of H.R. 2, the 
Student Results Act, which passed the House on October 21, 
1999. In addition, a similar version of H.R. 2725 was included 
as part of S. 2, the Educational Opportunities Act, which was 
ordered reported, as amended, by the Senate Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions on March 9, 2000. The 
Rural Education Initiative is included as part of H.R. 4577, 
the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for FY 2001.
    The Rural Education Initiative contained in the conference 
report for H.R. 4577 is based on H.R. 2725, the Rural Education 
Initiative Act, and amends Part J of Title X of the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to better address the 
different needs of small, rural school districts. Under this 
provision, a local educational agency (LEA) would be able to 
combine funding under various ESEA programs to support local or 
statewide education reform efforts intended to improve the 
academic achievement of elementary and secondary school 
students and the quality of instruction provided for these 
students. An LEA would be eligible to use funding under this 
provision if: (1) the total number of students in average daily 
attendance at all of the schools served by the LEA is less than 
600; and (2) all of the schools served by the LEA are 
designated with a School Locale Code of 7 or 8, as determined 
by the secretary of education. An eligible LEA would be able to 
combine funds from Title II (Eisenhower Professional 
Development Program), Title IV (Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 
Communities), and Title VI (Innovative Education Program 
Strategies) formula grant programs and use the money to carry 
out local activities authorized in Part A of Title I (Helping 
Disadvantaged Children Meet High Standards); Section 2210(b) 
(Eisenhower Professional Development Program); Section 3134 
(Technology for Education); or Section 4116 (Safe and Drug-Free 
Schools and Communities) of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act. Grants under this provision would be awarded to 
eligible LEAs based on the number of students in average daily 
attendance less the amount they received from the 
aforementioned formula grant programs. Minimum grants for LEAs 
would not be less than $20,000. The maximum an LEA could 
receive would be $60,000. LEAs participating in this initiative 
would have to meet high accountability standards by 
demonstrating the ability to meet academic achievement 
standards under Title I, such as the state's definition of 
adequate yearly progress. Schools failing to meet these 
requirements would not be eligible for continued funding.
            School renovation and repair
    Authority for using federal funds for school renovation and 
repair was included in H.R. 4577, the FY 2001 Departments of 
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act. Under the provisions, $1.1 billion 
would be distributed to states under the Title I formula, with 
a set-aside for small states.
    School districts would receive 75 percent of the funds for 
one-time competitive grants for classroom renovation and 
repair. A portion of these funds will be targeted to high-
poverty schools and rural schools. Funds for renovation and 
repair could be used for emergency repairs for health and 
safety, compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, 
access and accommodation provisions of the Rehabilitation Act, 
and asbestos abatement. No new construction would be allowed, 
except in connection with Native American schools. Funds may 
not be used for stadiums or maintenance costs.
    School districts would receive 25 percent of the funds 
through competitive grants for use under the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), or school technology, at the 
discretion of the local educational agency. The 25 percent set-
aside would be distributed to school districts through 
competitive grants.
    This proposal clarifies that public charter schools and 
private schools would be eligible for funds, as they are 
currently under Title VI of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act.
    Under the proposal, $25 million would be used to fund a 
charter school demonstration project, to determine the most 
effective means of leveraging private capital for charter 
schools.
    The agreement includes $75 million for schools with at 
least 50 percent of their students living on Native American 
lands, as well as rural Alaska. These schools, for which the 
federal government has a clear responsibility, have a dire need 
for additional federal funds for school renovation.
            Class size reduction
    The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2001, H.R. 
4577, includes $1.6 billion to continue the Class Size 
Reduction program. These funds may be used both for hiring 
teachers to reduce class size and for initiatives to promote 
teacher quality through such means as professional development, 
mentoring and other activities authorized under the Eisenhower 
Professional Development Program (part B of Title II of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act). Under the final 
agreement, up to 25 percent of a schools, grant may be used 
solely for teacher quality. Inaddition, the approximately 7,600 
school districts, which receive grants less than the starting salary of 
a teacher, may use all of their funds for teacher quality initiatives. 
This translates into over half of all school districts nationwide.
    In addition, any school district in which more than 10 
percent of their teachers are not certified or have had their 
certification waived, may use all of their funds received under 
this program for improving teacher quality. The final agreement 
also maintains provisions included as part of the FY 2000 
appropriations language for this program which will continue to 
allow school districts in states that set a goal of 20 students 
per classroom (and have met such goal) prior to enactment of 
this program, to use the funds for teacher quality initiatives.
            Teacher quality
    The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY 2001, 
H.R. 4577, includes $552.3 for teacher quality initiatives. Of 
this amount, $67.3 million will be available for the secretary 
to carry out other teacher quality initiatives at the national 
level. Of this amount, $3 million will be available to continue 
the ``Troops-to-Teachers'' program. $485 million will go toward 
state and local grants under the Eisenhower Professional 
Development Program (part B of title II of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1965). These new funds will be 
available to carry out activities currently authorized under 
the Eisenhower program with an emphasis on using funds toward 
reducing the number of uncertified teachers, teachers teaching 
out of field, and teachers who lack sufficient content 
knowledge to teach effectively in the areas they teach. In 
addition, state and local school districts will have the 
flexibility to use these funds to provide opportunities for 
teachers to participate in summer institutes providing 
intensive professional development and to implement incentives 
to retain quality teachers who have a record of success in 
helping low-achieving students improve their academic success.
            Early learning opportunities program
    H.R. 4577, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act 
FY 2001, includes a new Early Learning Opportunities program. 
This program is designed to help states increase the 
availability of voluntary programs, services, and activities 
that support early childhood education. Specifically, it 
provides grants to states to promote school readiness of young 
children (ages birth to 6) by helping parents, caretakers, 
child care providers, and educators who desire to incorporate 
appropriate developmental activities into the daily lives of 
pre-school age children. It also facilitates broader 
involvement of the community to develop a cohesive network of 
early learning opportunities. Finally, it includes a provision 
that prohibits the duplication of federal child care programs 
or early learning activities unless expansion of such activity 
is identified as a need through a local assessment.
            Internet filtering
    During the 106th Congress, the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce took appropriate and reasonable steps to ensure 
that federal funds will not be used to access, on the Internet, 
obscenity, child pornography, or material that is harmful to 
minors. Included in H.R. 4577, the Departments of Labor, Health 
and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act for FY 2001, is the Children's Internet 
Protection Act.
    The act would require recipients of Universal Service 
Discounts (E-rate) to have in place, for the protection of 
minors, technology to filter or block obscenity, child 
pornography, and material that is harmful to minors, and in the 
case of adults, block or filter child pornography and 
obscenity. For schools or libraries that do not receive 
Universal Service Discounts (E-rate), if such schools or 
libraries purchase computers, Internet access or related 
services with either ESEA Title III (technology) or Museum and 
Library Services Act funds, they must have in place, for the 
protection of minors, technology to filter or block obscenity, 
child pornography, and material that is harmful to minors, and 
in the case of adults, block or filter child pornography and 
obscenity. Local officials would have the latitude to disable 
filtering or blocking technology for bona fide research and 
other lawful purposes. Funds made available under Title III and 
Title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and 
under the Museum and Library Services Act may be used to 
purchase filtering or blocking software.
            Technical amendments to the Assets for Independence Act
    H.R. 4577, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act 
for FY 2001, includes S. 3214, the Assets for Independence Act 
Amendments of 2000. This measure makes technical changes to the 
Assets for Independence Act (Title IV of P.L. 105-285) to 
enhance the program's overall effectiveness. Title IV 
authorizes $25 million annually for a five-year demonstration 
program that establishes individual savings accounts (IDAs). 
IDAs are matched savings accounts for low-income individuals to 
use for postsecondary education, the purchase of a first home, 
and for business capitalization. Title IV is authorized through 
fiscal year 2003.
            Physical education for progress
    H.R. 4577, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act 
for FY 2001 includes authorization for a new program, Physical 
Education for Progress (PEP), as a new Part L of Title X of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The purpose of the 
Physical Education for Progress program is to enable local 
educational agencies to initiate, expand, and improve physical 
education programs for all K-12 students. Funding under this 
provision will be used to provide equipment and support to 
enable students to actively participate in physical education 
activities; develop or enhance physical education curricula; 
and provide funds for staff and teacher training and education. 
In addition, this provision ensures that funds are equitably 
distributed between urban and rural areas and allows for the 
participation of private and home-schooled children.

                          J. Other Initiatives

1. H.R. 905, the Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children Protection 
        Act

    The Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children Protection 
Act, H.R. 905, was introduced by Representative Mike Castle (R-
DE) on March 2, 1999. The act provides services for the 500,000 
to 1.5 million youth estimated to run away each year. It 
provides an annual authorization of appropriations for the 
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and extends 
funding for runaway and homeless youth programs that protect 
children by keeping them off the streets, away from criminal 
activities, and out of potentially dangerous situations. 
Additionally, the legislation authorizes funding to study 
incidents of school violence in urban, suburban, and rural 
schools.
    The Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth, and Families 
favorably reported H.R. 905 (as amended) by voice vote on April 
22, 1999. The full committee favorably reported H.R. 905 (as 
amended) by voice vote on April 28, 1999.
    S. 249, a bill similar to H.R. 905, was favorably reported 
by the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 4, 1999. The Senate 
passed S. 249 by unanimous consent on April 19, 1999.
    The House passed S. 249, as amended, with the H.R. 905 
provisions, on May 25, 1999, by a vote of 414-1. The House 
later passed H.R. 1501 (Juvenile Justice bill), which also 
included the H.R. 905 provisions, on June 17, 1999, by a vote 
of 287-139. The Senate again passed S. 249, as amended by the 
House, on September 28, 1999, by unanimous consent. On October 
12, 1999, the president signed S. 249 into law as Public Law 
106-71.

2. H.R. 1150, the Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency Prevention Act

    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 in addressing 
problems related to juvenile crime in today's society. Key 
provisions in H.R. 1150 provided states and local communities 
with greater flexibility in how they address juvenile crime 
under the existing formula grant program and such provisions 
combine current discretionary programs into a block grant to 
the states. In addition, H.R. 1150 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 sources for runaway and homeless 
youth programs had proven to be piecemeal, unnecessary and 
duplicative. H.R. 1150 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. 1150 
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. During the 106th 
Congress, two hearings were held. Seven 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.
    The House passed H.R. 1501, the Consequences for Juvenile 
Offenders Act on June 17, 1999 by a vote of 287-139, which 
included the provisions of H.R. 1150, the Juvenile Crime 
Control and Delinquency Prevention Act. H.R. 1150 passed by a 
vote of 424-2 as a Goodling amendment to H.R. 1501, the 
Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 1999.
    H.R. 1150 contained provisions to authorize the Runaway and 
Homeless Youth Act and the Missing Children's Assistance Act. 
Those provisions were also contained in H.R. 905, the Missing, 
Exploited, and Runaway Children Protection Act, a stand-alone 
bill to authorize those acts. The stand-alone bill has been 
signed into law as P.L. 106-71, as earlier mentioned.
    Several education-related amendments were added to the H.R. 
1150/Goodling amendment during floor consideration of H.R. 
1501. An amendment to the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act giving school personnel the ability to apply a 
uniform discipline policy to students who bring weapons to 
school was added, as was an amendment to provide teacher 
liability protection for teachers who discipline students. The 
House also added amendments allowing the use of juvenile 
justice funds for metal detectors in schools and for character 
education in schools.
    Several culture-related amendments were added to the H.R. 
1150/Goodling amendment. The House added an amendment that 
would prohibit state or local governments, when awarding 
juvenile justice grants or contracts, from discriminating 
against religious organizations. The House also added 
amendments relating to First Amendment lawsuits, the Ten 
Commandments, school memorials, and Internet filtering.
    The Senate passed their juvenile crime control and 
delinquency prevention package, S. 254, the Violent and Repeat 
Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act of 
1999, on May 20, 1999. The House and Senate appointed 
conferees. However, no agreement was reached by the end of the 
106th Congress.

3. H.R. 1248, the Violence Against Women Act of 2000

    On March 24, 1999, Representative Constance Morella (R-MD) 
introduced H.R. 1248, the Violence Against Women Act of 2000. 
The bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in 
addition to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and 
the Committee on Commerce. The legislation amends several 
existing laws including two within the sole jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce. These include the 
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA) and the 
Runaway and Homeless Youth program.
    The Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA) 
covers several activities and programs which address domestic 
violence. FVPSA was originally enacted as part of the Child 
Abuse Amendments of 1984. In 1995, the program was extended 
through FY 2000 as part of the ``Violent Crime Control and Law 
Enforcement Act of 1994'' commonly known as the ``Crime Bill.'' 
The Child Abuse Prevention Treatment Act (CAPTA) amendments of 
1996 made minor amendments to the program but did not extend 
the authorization past FY 2000. H.R. 1248proposed extending the 
authorization of the programs under FVPSA and making several 
modifications to these programs. However, in the final version of this 
legislation, many of these provisions were dropped, while providing for 
a five-year reauthorization, with the intent that these programs will 
be reviewed as part of the CAPTA reauthorization, expected in the 107th 
Congress.
    The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act provides funding for 
street-based outreach and education to prevent sexual abuse and 
exploitation. H.R. 1248 would reauthorize this program. 
However, given that the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce had already extended the authorization for this 
program in 1999, these provisions were removed in the final 
version of the legislation.
    The House passed H.R. 1248, the Violence Against Women Act 
(VAWA) on September 26, 2000 by a vote of 415-3. The 
provisions, as amended, were added to the conference report (H. 
Rept. 106-939) of H.R. 3244, the Trafficking Victims Protection 
Act of 1999, introduced by Representative Christopher Smith (R-
NJ). On October 6, 2000, the conference report passed in the 
House by a vote of 371-1. On October 11, 2000 the Senate agreed 
to the conference report by a vote of 95 to 0. On October 28, 
2000, H.R. 3244 became Public Law 106-386.
    The final VAWA provisions included as part of Public Law 
106-386 and within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce would do the following: amend the 
FVSPA to include temporary housing assistance; provide the 
secretary of health and human services $25 million for a one 
year authorization to fund programs which provide temporary 
housing assistance as a result of fleeing a situation of 
domestic violence; include a $2 million authorization for each 
of the next five years to carry out the National Domestic 
Violence Hotline; and include a $6 million authorization for 
community initiatives to address family violence. The new law 
also includes provisions that were originally part of the 
Senate bill related to campus crime, specifically: requires 
institutions of higher education to include in their annual 
campus security reports, a statement advising the campus 
community of the location where information concerning 
registered sex offenders may be obtained, such as the law 
enforcement office of the institution, a local law enforcement 
agency or a computer network address; and amends the Family 
Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) to clarify 
that institutions of higher education are not prohibited from 
disclosing information provided to the institution under the 
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. These provisions 
are based on H.R. 4407, the Campus Protection Act, introduced 
by Representative Matt Salmon (R-AZ).
    H.R. 3244 was signed into law on October 28, 2000. It is 
now Public Law 106-386.

4. H.R. 2909, the Intercountry Adoption Act of 1999

    H.R. 2909, introduced by Representative Benjamin Gilman (R-
NY), provides for the implementation by the United States of 
the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation 
in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. On September 22, 1999 the 
legislation was referred to the Committee on International 
Relations, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, 
and Education and the Workforce. On June 22, 2000 the 
legislation was reported, as amended, by the Committee on 
International Relations and sequentially referred to the House 
Committee on Ways and Means. On that date, the legislation was 
discharged by the Committee on Ways and Means, the Judiciary 
Committee and the Committee on Education and the Workforce. On 
July 18, 2000 the bill was considered under suspension of the 
rules and was agreed to by voice vote. On July 27, the bill was 
passed in the Senate with an amendment by unanimous consent. On 
September 18, the House agreed with an amendment to the Senate 
amendment without objection. On September 20, the Senate agreed 
to the House amendment by unanimous consent. On October 6, 2000 
the legislation was signed by the president and became Public 
Law 106-279.
    The Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and 
Cooperation in Respect of Intercounty Adoption establishes 
uniform standards and procedures for the international adoption 
of children. The Convention has three primary features: 
reinforces the protection of children's rights concerning 
international adoption; establishes a mechanism for the 
cooperation of signatory countries in the area of international 
adoption; and ensures the recognition of adoptions undertaken 
and certified through the Convention provisions.

5. H.R. 3614, Emergency Commodity Distribution Act of 2000

    Since the 103rd Congress, 12 percent of the costs of school 
lunches was to be in the form of agricultural products 
purchased for schools. During the 105th Congress, at the 
suggestion of the administration, this law was modified to 
allow the 12 percent commodity requirement to be met through a 
combination of entitlement and bonus commodities for the period 
of October 1, 2000 through September 30, 2009. The savings 
achieved as a result of this revision was used to help fund the 
``Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999.'' 
As a consequence, the amount of commodities available to 
schools was reduced because bonus commodities would be counted 
as part of the 12 percent commodity requirement rather than in 
addition to the commodities schools would normally receive 
under the 12 percent requirement. Not only did this change 
affect the amount of commodities available for meals for 
children, it effectively reduced purchases of agriculture 
commodities, resulting in a negative impact on the agriculture 
community.
    Chairman Bill Goodling (R-PA) introduced H.R. 3614, the 
Emergency Commodity Distribution Act of 2000, on February 10, 
2000 in order to restore the original 12 percent commodity 
requirement. A hearing was held on the legislation on February 
15, 2000. Witnesses included the American School Food Services 
Association, the American Commodity Distribution Association, 
and the Apricot Producers of California. The Committee took no 
further action on this legislation. However, during a House/
Senate conference on H.R. 2559, the Agriculture Risk Protection 
Act, the conferees agreed to restore commodity support for two 
fiscal years. The conference report to H.R. 2559 passed the 
House of Representatives on May 25 by voice vote and the U. S. 
Senate on May 25 by a vote of 91-4. It was signed into law on 
June 22, 2000 and is Public Law 106-224.

6. H.R. 4520, Child Care and Adult Care Food Program Integrity Act

    In recent years, there have been two reports that have 
focused on the serious problems with fraud and abuse in the 
Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), which provides meals 
and snacks to children in child care facilities and family day 
care homes.
    The first report was issued in August 1999 from the Office 
of the Inspector General (IG) at the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (USDA). This report, ``Presidential Initiative: 
Operation Kiddie Care,'' found that the program was highly 
vulnerable to abuse because the primary controls for combating 
fraud and abuse were vested in CACFP sponsors, with federal and 
state oversight lacking. Sponsors are the intermediaries 
between states and local providers. They collect funds from 
states and disburse them to local providers. The Inspector 
General (IG) found some sponsors were using program funds for 
their personal enrichment, thus reducing funds available to 
provide an effective food service program to children in day 
care.
    The second report was issued three months later (November, 
1999) by the General Accounting Office (GAO) and was entitled, 
``Food Assistance: Efforts to Control Fraud and Abuse in the 
Child and Adult Care Food Program Should Be Strengthened.'' The 
GAO report found that the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) had 
not effectively directed the states' efforts to protect against 
fraud and abuse. According to GAO, state agencies claimed that 
a lack of resources, a lack of training in the identification 
of fraud and abuse and unclear regulations on the removal of 
noncompliant sponsors were among the reasons that they could 
not strengthen controls.
    After a series of meetings with the department of 
agriculture and members of the nutrition community, Chairman 
Bill Goodling (R-PA) introduced H.R. 4520 the Child and Adult 
Care Food Program Integrity Act on May 23, 2000. The purpose of 
this bill was to address the problems outlined in these 
reports, to eliminate fraud and abuse and to address deficient 
management practices in the Child and Adult Care Food Program.
    Major provisions of this legislation would: (1) require 
USDA to develop a plan for ongoing periodic training of state 
and sponsor staff on the identification of fraud and abuse in 
order to ensure that current and new employees can assist in 
efforts to prevent fraud and abuse; (2) require a minimum 
number of unannounced and scheduled site visits; (3) permit the 
secretary of agriculture to withhold, in whole or in part, 
state administrative funds in instances where states have not 
met their responsibilities for oversight and training for 
sponsors and providers; (4) provide notification to parents 
that their children are enrolled in a child care center or 
group or family day care home participating in the CACFP; (5) 
bar the recovery of funds lost due to fraud and abuse from food 
dollars that benefit participating children; (6) make it clear 
that sponsors applying for participation in CACFP must meet 
specific qualifications and will not automatically be approved; 
(7) require the development of detailed criteria for approving 
new sponsors and for renewing sponsors which would include 
factors such as whether or not they are capable of performing 
the job, have appropriate business experience and adequate 
management plans, and whether or not there is a need for an 
additional sponsor in a specific area; (8) limit administrative 
costs for sponsors of day care centers to 15 percent of the 
funds they disburse to decrease the potential for abuse; (9) 
require USDA, working with states and sponsors, to develop a 
list of allowable administrative costs for sponsors of family 
day care homes and child care centers; (10) require the 
department of agriculture to establish minimum standards 
regarding the number of monitors sponsors should employ to 
ensure there are sufficient monitors to visit providers and 
detect fraud and abuse; (11) require state agencies that 
administer CACFP to deny approval of institutions determined to 
have been terminated with cause or that lost their license to 
operate any federally funded program; (12) limit the ability of 
day care homes to switch sponsoring organizations to once a 
year unless they can demonstrate they are transferring for good 
cause; (13) require sponsors to have in effect a policy that 
restricts other employment by employees that interferes with 
their responsibilities and duties with respect to CACFP; (14) 
require the secretary to develop procedures for terminating 
sponsors for unlawful conduct and failure to meet their 
agreements with the state; and (15) provide for the immediate 
suspension of sponsors and providers in cases where there is a 
health or safety threat to participating children.
    The majority of the provisions of H.R. 4520 were added to 
the House/Senate conference on H.R. 2559, the Agriculture Risk 
Protection Act, which became Public Law 106-224.

7. H.R. 4178, the Kids 2000 Act

    H.R. 4178, introduced by Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee 
(D-TX), establishes a new crime prevention and computer 
education initiative. The bill was referred to the Committee on 
the Judiciary, and the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
on April 6, 2000. An identical version, S. 2061, was introduced 
in the Senate by Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE). The provisions of 
H.R. 4178 were attached to S. 2045, the American 
Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000, 
introduced by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). This legislation passed 
the Senate by a vote of 96 to 1 on October 3, 2000 and passed 
the House by voice vote, on the same day. On November 17, 2000 
the President signed S. 2045, and it became Public Law 106-313.

8. H.R. 4542, to designate the Washington Opera in Washington D.C. as 
        the National Opera

    On May 25, 2000, Representative Bill Goodling (R-PA) 
introduced H.R. 4542, to designate the Washington Opera in 
Washington D.C. as the National Opera. H.R. 4542 passed the 
House under suspension of the rules on June 6, 2000, by voice 
vote. On June 7, 2000, the Senate passed H.R. 4542 by unanimous 
consent. On June 21, 2000, H.R. 4542 was signed into law by the 
president and became Public Law 106-219.

9. H.R. 4725, to amend the Zuni Land Conservation Act

    On June 22, 2000, Representative Joe Skeen (R-NM) 
introduced H.R. 4725, which makes minor amendments to the Zuni 
Land Conservation Act. The House Committee on Resources 
considered H.R. 4725 in legislative session on July 26, 2000. 
During that session, an unrelated amendment was accepted which 
would provide funding for the Morris K. Udall Foundation to 
promote leadership and management training and policy analysis 
for Native Americans, Alaska Natives, and others involved in 
tribal leadership and management. This amendment was based on 
the text of H.R. 4631, and is primarily under the jurisdiction 
of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
    On October 19, 2000, H.R. 4725, as amended, was favorably 
reported by the Committee on Resources. On October 19, 2000, 
H.R. 4725 was referred to the House Committee on Education and 
the Workforce. On October 26, 2000 the provisions relating to 
the Morris K. UdallFoundation were included in H.R. 5528, the 
Omnibus Indian Advancement Act and passed the House under suspension of 
the rules.

10. H.R. 5123, the School Safety Hotline Act

    Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) introduced the School 
Safety Hotline Act, H.R. 5123, on September 7, 2000. The School 
Safety Hotline Act would require the secretary of education to 
provide written notification to states and state educational 
agencies of their ability to use state administrative funds 
under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act and 
Title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to 
establish toll-free telephone hotlines for students, parents, 
and school personnel to report suspicious, violent, or 
threatening behavior to law enforcement authorities.
    The bill passed under suspension of the rules by voice vote 
on September 12, 2000.

11. S. 380, the Congressional Award Act Amendments of 1999

    S. 380, a bill to reauthorize the Congressional Award Act, 
was introduced on February 4, 1999 by Senator Larry Craig (R-
ID). The Congressional Award is presented on a non-competitive, 
individual basis to young people in the United States between 
the ages of 14 and 23 in recognition of initiative, 
achievement, and service. To earn a Congressional Award, 
participants establish and achieve individual goals in four 
program areas (voluntary public service, personal development, 
physical fitness, and expedition/exploration) and are awarded 
bronze, silver, or gold medals by Members of Congress based on 
activities completed by the participants. On April 13, 1999, S. 
380 passed the Senate by unanimous consent and on April 14, 
1999, it was received in the House and referred to the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce. S. 380 passed the 
House under suspension of the rules on September 13, 1999 by 
voice vote. On October 1, 1999, S. 380 was signed into law by 
the president and became Public Law 106-63.

12. S. 2789, Congressional Recognition for Excellence in Arts Education 
        Act

    S. 2789 is a bill to amend the Congressional Award Act to 
provide awards to schools and students for excellence in the 
arts and in arts education. S. 2789 was introduced by Senator 
Thad Cochran (R-MS) on June 26, 2000. The Excellence in Arts 
Education Act, which would consist of 9 members, would be 
responsible for establishing, funding, and administering the 
awards. S. 2789 also establishes an advisory board to assist 
and advise the board with respect to its duties. The advisory 
board would consist of 15 members and be selected by the board 
from among recommendations received from organizations and 
entities involved in the arts such as businesses and civic and 
cultural organizations as well as the Arts Education 
Partnership steering committee. S. 2789 passed the Senate on 
October 27, 2000 by unanimous consent. S. 2789 passed the House 
under suspension of the rules on October 31, 2000 by a voice 
vote. On November 22, 2000, S. 2789 was signed into law by the 
president and became Public Law 106-533.

                        K. COMMITTEE RESOLUTIONS

H. Con. Res. 76, child abuse and neglect concurrent resolution

    H. Con. Res. 76, introduced by Representative Matt Salmon 
(R-AZ), recognizes the social problem of child abuse and 
neglect, and supports efforts to enhance public awareness of 
this problem. On March 24, 1999, the resolution was referred to 
the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. On April 9, 
1999, the resolution was referred to the Subcommittee on Early 
Childhood, Youth and Families. On February 14, 2000, the House 
of Representatives passed H. Con. Res. 76 under suspension of 
the rules, by a vote of 378 to 0.

H. Con. Res. 84, concurrent resolution on full funding of the 
        Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

    Chairman Bill Goodling (R-PA) introduced the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Funding Resolution, H. 
Con. Res. 84, on April 13, 1999. The resolution urges Congress 
and the president, working within the constraints of the 
balanced budget agreement, to give programs under the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act the highest 
priority for federal elementary and secondary education funding 
by meeting the commitment to fund the maximum state grant 
allocation under IDEA prior to authorizing or appropriating 
funds for any new education initiative. The federal government 
should meet the IDEA funding commitment while retaining the 
commitment to fund existing federal programs that increase 
student achievement.
    The Committee on Education and the Workforce favorably 
reported the resolution, as amended, by a vote of 38-4 on April 
28, 1999. H. Con. Res. 84 passed the House by a vote of 413-2 
on May 4, 1999. A related bill, S. Con. Res. 25 was introduced 
in the Senate on April 13, 1999, but no further action was 
taken.

H. Con. Res. 88, higher education funding concurrent resolution

    Chairman Howard ``Buck'' McKeon (R-CA) introduced H. Con. 
Res. 88 on April 20, 1999. The resolution urges Congress and 
the president, working within the constraints of the balanced 
budget agreement, to make student scholarship aid the highest 
priority for higher education funding by increasing the maximum 
Pell Grant award to low income students by $400 and increasing 
other existing campus-based aid programs that serve low income 
students prior to authorizing or appropriating funds for any 
new education initiative. The Committee on Education and the 
Workforce reported H. Con. Res. 88 on April 28, 1999, by a vote 
of 36-10. On May 4, 1999, H. Con. Res. 88 passed the House by a 
vote of 397-13, with 4 members voting present. On July 14, 
2000, H. Con. Res. 88 was referred to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions in the Senate. The Senate took 
no further action.

H. Con. Res. 92, concurrent resolution on Columbine High School in 
        Littleton, Colorado.

    Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) introduced the Columbine High 
School Resolution, H. Con. Res. 92, on April 27, 1999. The 
resolution condemned the shooting at Columbine High School in 
Littleton, Colorado and expressed condolences to the friends 
and families of those killed in the shooting.
    The resolution passed the House of Representatives under 
suspension of the rules by voice vote on April 27, 1999. On the 
same day, the Senate agreed to it by a vote of 99-0.

H. Con. Res. 93, child abuse and neglect concurrent resolution

    On April 27, 1999, Representative Deborah Pryce (R-OH) 
introduced H. Con. Res. 93, which expresses the sense of 
Congress regarding the social problem of child abuse and 
neglect; it also supports efforts to enhance public awareness 
of this problem. H. Con. Res. 93 was referred to the Committee 
on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the 
Committee on the Judiciary on April 27, 1999. On April 29, 1999 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Committee 
on the Judiciary discharged the resolution. On the same day, 
the House of Representatives considered H. Con. Res. 93 by 
unanimous consent and passed the resolution by voice vote. On 
May 4, 1999 H. Con. Res. 93 was referred to the Senate 
Committee on the Judiciary. The Senate took no further action.

H. Con. Res. 107, concurrent resolution on a report of the American 
        Psychological Association

    H. Con. Res. 107, introduced by Representative Matt Salmon 
(R-AZ), expresses Congress' rejection of the conclusions of a 
recent article published by the American Psychological 
Association that suggests that sexual relationships between 
adults and children might be positive for children. The 
resolution was referred to the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce on May 12, 1999 and to the Subcommittee on Early 
Childhood, Youth and Families on June 4, 1999. On July 12, 1999 
the resolution was considered by the House of Representatives 
under the suspension of the rules and agreed to by a vote of 
355 to 0, with 13 members voting present. On July 30, 1999, the 
Senate agreed to the resolution by unanimous consent.

H. Con. Res. 191, the Brooklyn Museum of Art concurrent resolution

    On October 10, 1999, Representative John E. Sweeney (R-NY) 
introduced H. Con. Res. 191, which expressed the sense of 
Congress that the Brooklyn Museum of Art should not receive 
federal funds unless it canceled an exhibit featuring works of 
a sacrilegious nature. H. Con. Res. 191 was introduced in 
response to an exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum of Art entitled 
``Sensation: Young British Artists from the Saatchi 
Collection.'' The exhibition included, among several offensive 
works, a portrait of the Virgin Mary stained with elephant dung 
and covered with pictures cut out from pornographic magazines. 
The exhibit included a warning label that warned about the 
content of the exhibition and children under the age of 17 were 
required to be accompanied by an adult. The Brooklyn Museum of 
Art receives taxpayer money through the National Endowment for 
the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.
    H. Con. Res. 191 was referred to the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce on October 1, 1999. On October 4, 1999 the 
concurrent resolution, as amended, passed the House under 
suspension of the rules by voice vote. It was referred to the 
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions on 
October 5, 1999. The Senate took no further action.

H. Con. Res. 194, concurrent resolution on the contributions of 4-H 
        clubs and their members to voluntary community service

    On October 7, 1999, Representative Nathan Deal (R-GA) 
introduced H. Con. Res. 194, which recognizes 4-H Clubs for 
their voluntary community service. The concurrent resolution 
commends the 4-H program for giving young people in the United 
States the opportunity to actively participate in volunteer 
services in their communities that can bridge differences that 
separate people and help solve social problems. H. Con. Res. 
194 was referred to the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce on October 7, 1999. On October 25, 1999, the 
concurrent resolution was considered under suspension of the 
rules and passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 391-
0. H. Con. Res. 194 was referred to the Senate on October 26, 
1999.

H. Con. Res. 213, concurrent resolution on financial literacy training

    On October 28, 1999, Representatives David Dreier (R-CA) 
and Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) introduced H. Con. Res. 213, which 
encouraged the secretary of education to promote financial 
literacy training. A recent study by the National Endowment for 
Financial Education has shown that personal finance education 
improves students' saving and spending habits and money 
management skills. Specifically, this resolution encourages the 
secretary of education to use funds available from Part A of 
Title X (Fund for the Improvement of Education) of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act to promote personal 
financial literacy programs. In addition, the concurrent 
resolution encourages states and local educational agencies to 
incorporate personal financial management curriculums into 
their education programs. On October 28, 1999, H. Con. Res. 213 
was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce. 
On November 2, 1999, the concurrent resolution was considered 
under suspension of the rules and passed the House by a vote of 
411 to 3. The Senate received H. Con. Res. 213 on November 3, 
1999 and it was referred to the Senate Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions on November 19, 1999. The Senate 
took no further action.

H. Con. Res. 229, concurrent resolution on the United States 
        Congressional Philharmonic Society

    H. Con. Res. 229, introduced by Representative Tom Davis 
(R-VA) on November 16, 1999, expresses the sense of Congress 
regarding the United States Congressional Philharmonic Society 
and its mission of promoting musical excellence throughout the 
educational system. Specifically, H. Con. Res. 229 states that 
the United States Congressional Philharmonic Society should be 
applauded: (1) for organizing two musical groups, the United 
States Congressional Choral Society and the United States 
Congressional Philharmonic Orchestra; (2) for having as its 
mission the promotion of patriotism, freedom, democracy, and 
understanding of American culture through sponsorship, 
management, and support of these groups; and (3) for promoting 
musical excellence throughout the educational system. On 
November 16, 1999, the concurrent resolution was referred to 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce. On June 6, 2000, 
theconcurrent resolution was considered under suspension of the 
rules and passed the House of Representatives by voice vote. H. Con. 
Res. 229 was referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on June 
7, 2000. The Senate took no further action.

H. Con. Res. 266, concurrent resolution on the benefits of music 
        education

    On March 6, 2000, Representative David McIntosh (R-IN) 
introduced H. Con. Res. 266, expressing the sense of Congress 
regarding the benefits of music education. H. Con. Res. 266 
expresses the sense of the Congress that: (1) music education 
enhances intellectual development and enriches the academic 
environment for children of all ages; and (2) music educators 
greatly contribute to the artistic, intellectual, and social 
development of children, and play a key role in helping 
children to succeed in school. H. Con. Res. 266 was introduced 
in response to recent studies that appear to show a link 
between music education and improved academic achievement; the 
concurrent resolution is also intended to commend our nation's 
music teachers for the roles they play in the lives of our 
children.
    On March 6, 2000, the concurrent resolution was referred to 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce. On June 13, 2000, 
H. Con. Res. 266 passed the House under suspension of the rules 
by voice vote. On June 14, 2000, H. Con. Res. 266 was received 
in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions. The Senate took no further 
action.

H. Con. Res. 288, concurrent resolution on families and children

    On March 16, 2000, Representative Patrick Toomey (R-PA) 
introduced H. Con. Res. 288, which recognizes the importance of 
families and children and expresses support for the goals of 
National Family Day. H. Con. Res. 288 encourages the people of 
the United States to participate in local and national 
activities honoring National Family Day, which was established 
by KidsPeace. KidsPeace is a not-for-profit organization 
dedicated to helping children attain the confidence and courage 
needed to face and overcome crises. On March 16, 2000, the 
concurrent resolution was referred to the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce. H. Con. Res. 288 passed the House 
under suspension of the rules on March 21, 2000 by a vote of 
392 to 0. On March 22, 2000, the concurrent resolution was 
received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.

H. Con. Res. 309, concurrent resolution on in-school personal safety 
        education programs

    On April 13, 2000, Representative Mike Castle (R-DE) 
introduced H. Con. Res. 309, which expresses the sense of the 
Congress with regard to in-school personal safety education 
programs for children. H. Con. Res. 309 expresses the sense of 
Congress that states should encourage their primary and 
secondary schools to implement quality child safety curricula 
so that each child receives instruction that is positive, 
comprehensive, and effective; the resolution recognizes the 
``Guidelines for Programs to Reduce Child Victimization'' of 
the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children as one 
of the tools to guide the selection of quality child safety 
programs when local schools develop such programs. On April 13, 
2000, the concurrent resolution was referred to the Committee 
on Education and the Workforce. On May 15, 2000, H. Con. Res. 
309 passed the House under suspension of the rules by a vote of 
383 to 0. On May 16, 2000, the concurrent resolution was 
received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.

H. Con. Res. 310, national charter schools week concurrent resolution

    H. Con. Res. 310, introduced by Representative Tim Roemer 
(D-IN), supports a National Charter Schools Week and 
congratulates parents and educators across the country for 
their hard work on behalf of the charter schools movement. H. 
Con. Res. 310 was introduced and referred to the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce on April 13, 2000. The concurrent 
resolution passed the House under suspension of the rules by a 
vote of 397 to 20 on May 3, 2000. It was received in the Senate 
and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary on May 4, 2000. 
On May 4, 2000, the Senate agreed to S. Con. Res. 108, a 
similar concurrent resolution designating the week beginning on 
April 30, 2000, and ending on May 6, 2000 as ``National Charter 
Schools Week.''

H. Con. Res. 343, concurrent resolution on families eating together 
        resolution

    H. Con. Res. 343, introduced by Representative Charles 
Rangel (D-NY), recognizes the importance and benefits of eating 
meals together as a family. It also establishes a National Eat-
Dinner-With-Your-Children Day to encourage families to eat 
together as often as possible. H. Con. Res. 343 was introduced 
and referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce on 
May 25, 2000 and referred to the Subcommittee on Early 
Childhood, Youth and Families on July 13, 2000. The concurrent 
resolution was considered and passed unanimously by the House 
of Representatives on July 25, 2000. It was received in the 
Senate and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary on July 
26, 2000.

H. Con. Res. 366, concurrent resolution on the importance and value of 
        education in United States history

    On June 29, 2000, Representative Thomas Petri (R-WI) 
introduced H. Con. Res. 366, which expresses the sense of 
Congress regarding the importance and value of United States 
history in the education of students in this country. H. Con. 
Res. 366 expresses the sense of the Congress that: (1) the 
historical illiteracy of U.S. college and university graduates 
is a serious problem that should be addressed by the higher 
education community; (2) boards of trustees and administrators 
at institutions of higher education in the United States should 
review their curricula and add requirements in U.S. history; 
(3) state officials responsible for higher education should 
review public college and university curricula and promote 
requirements in U.S. history; (4) parents should encourage 
their children to select institutions of higher education with 
substantial history requirements and students should take 
courses in U.S. history, whether required or not; and (5) 
history teachers and educators at all levels should redouble 
their efforts to bolster the knowledge of U.S. history among 
students of all ages. H. Con. Res. 366 was introduced in 
response to an alarming report issued by the American Council 
of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA), which showed that graduates of 
top colleges and universities are graduating with little or no 
knowledge of basic American history, and that none of the 
nation's top colleges or universities require students to take 
any courses in American history prior to graduation.
    On June 30, 2000, Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) 
introduced identical legislation. S. Con. Res. 129 passed the 
Senate on June 30, 2000, by unanimous consent. On July 10, 
2000, the House of Representatives passed S. Con. Res. 129 
under suspension of the rules by voice vote.

H. Con. Res. 375, concurrent resolution on American youth day

    H. Con. Res. 375, introduced by Representative Bill 
McCollum (R-FL), recognizes the importance of young people to 
the future of the United States. The concurrent resolution 
supports the goals of American Youth Day. The concurrent 
resolution also encourages the people of the United States to 
participate in local and national activities that seek to 
fulfill five promises to America's youth, as established by 
America's Promise--The Alliance for Youth. These promises are: 
(1) ongoing relationships with caring adults; (2) safe places 
with structured activities during non-school hours; (3) a 
healthy start and future; (4) marketable skills through 
effective education; and (5) opportunities to give back through 
community service. H. Con. Res. 375 was introduced and referred 
to the Committee on Education and the Workforce on July 18, 
2000. The concurrent resolution passed the House under 
suspension of the rules by voice vote on July 25, 2000. It was 
received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on the 
Judiciary on July 26, 2000.

H. Con. Res. 399, concurrent resolution on the 25th anniversary of the 
        Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

    Chairman Bill Goodling (R-PA) introduced the IDEA 25th 
Anniversary Resolution, H. Con. Res. 399, on September 13, 
2000. The IDEA 25th Anniversary Resolution recognizes the 25th 
anniversary of the enactment of the Education for All 
Handicapped Children Act of 1975, the predecessor to the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The 
resolution acknowledges the contributions of children with 
disabilities, their parents, and the school personnel who serve 
them. It also reaffirms Congressional support for IDEA so that 
all children with disabilities have access to a free 
appropriate education.
    The resolution was agreed to by the House of 
Representatives under suspension of the rules by a vote of 359-
2 on September 25, 2000. The Senate passed the resolution by 
unanimous consent on October 4, 2000.

H. Res. 157, resolution on teachers

    H. Res. 157, introduced by Representative Kay Granger (R-
TX), expresses the support of the House of Representatives for 
America's teachers. The resolution was referred to the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce on May 4, 1999. On May 
4, 1999, the House of Representatives considered the resolution 
under suspension of the rules and passed the measure 408-1.

H. Res. 207, resolution on community renewal through community and 
        faith-based organizations

    On June 14, 1999, Representative Joseph Pitts (R-PA) 
introduced H. Res. 207, which expresses the sense of the House 
of Representatives with regard to community renewal through 
community and faith-based organizations. H. Res. 207: (1) 
extends gratitude to the private nonprofit organizations and 
volunteers whose commitment to meet human needs in areas of 
poverty is key to long-term renewal of urban centers and 
distressed rural communities; (2) seeks to empower the 
strengths of America's communities, local leaders, and 
mediating institutions such as its families, schools, spiritual 
leaders, businesses and nonprofit organizations; (3) urges the 
House of Representatives to empower community and faith-based 
organizations to promote effective solutions to the social, 
financial, and emotional needs of urban centers and rural 
communities, and the long-term solutions to the problems faced 
by our culture; and (4) urges the House of Representatives to 
work with the Senate and the president to support a 
compassionate grassroots approach to addressing the family, 
economic, and cultural breakdown that plagues many of our 
nation's urban and rural communities.
    H. Res. 207 was referred to the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce on June 15, 1999. On June 22, 1999, H. Res. 207 
passed the House under suspension of the rules by voice vote.

H. Res. 280, resolution on strong marriages

    On August 5, 1999, Representative Vernon Ehlers (R-MI) 
introduced H. Res. 280, which recognizes the importance of 
strong marriages and the contributions that community marriage 
policies have made to the strength of marriages throughout the 
United States. Specifically, this resolution: (1) recognizes 
the importance of strong marriages for a strong society; (2) 
commends communities that have established community marriage 
policies for their efforts in supporting marriage and 
preventing divorces; and (3) encourages other communities in 
the United States to develop voluntary community marriage 
policies to enable community members such as clergy, business 
leaders, public officials, and health professionals, to work 
together to strengthen marriages and provide stable 
environments for children. On August 5, 1999, the resolution 
was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce. 
On June 12, 2000, H. Res. 280 passed the House of 
Representatives under suspension of the rules by a voice vote.

H. Res. 303, resolution on dollars to the classroom

    Representative Joseph Pitts (R-PA) introduced a ``Dollars 
to the Classroom'' resolution on September 23, 1999. H. Res. 
303 calls upon the U.S. Department of Education, states, and 
local educational agencies to work together to ensure that not 
less than 95 percent of federal elementary and secondary 
education program funds are spent on classroom activities. H. 
Res. 303 was referred to the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce on September 23, 1999. On October 12, 1999 the House 
of Representatives passed H. Res. 303 under suspension of the 
rules by a vote of 421-5.

H. Res. 409, resolution on Catholic schools

    On January 31, 2000, Representative Bob Schaffer (R-CO) 
introduced H. Res. 409, which honors the contributions of 
Catholic schools. Specifically, H. Res. 409 supports the goals 
of Catholic Schools Week, an event sponsored by the National 
Catholic Educational Association and the United States Catholic 
Conference. Catholic Schools Week was established to recognize 
the contributions of Catholic elementary and secondary schools 
to education. The resolutioncongratulates Catholic schools, 
students, parents, and teachers for their ongoing contributions to 
education, and for the key role they play in promoting and ensuring a 
brighter, stronger future for this nation. H. Res. 409 was referred to 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce on January 31, 2000. On 
February 1, 2000, H. Res. 409 passed the House of Representatives under 
suspension of the rules by a voice vote.

H. Res. 456, resolution on the Arapahoe rescue patrol of Littleton, 
        Colorado

    H. Res. 456, introduced by Representative Thomas Tancredo 
(R-CO), acknowledges and highlights the efforts of the Arapahoe 
Rescue Patrol of Littleton, Colorado in promoting community 
services activities for youth. It was founded in 1957 to gather 
high school age volunteers for community service. The Arapahoe 
Rescue Patrol is a non-profit organization that assists law 
enforcement agencies, fire departments and search and rescue 
missions. H. Res. 456 was introduced and referred to the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce on April 3, 2000. On 
May 15, 2000 the resolution passed the House of Representatives 
under suspension of the rules by voice vote.

H. Res. 465, resolution on abandoned babies

    H. Res. 465, introduced by Representative Nancy Johnson (R-
CT), expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that 
local, state, and federal governments should collect and 
disseminate statistics on the number of newborn babies 
abandoned in public places. The resolution was introduced and 
referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce 
on April 6, 2000. On April 11, 2000, the House of 
Representatives considered the resolution under suspension of 
the rules and passed the resolution by voice vote.

H. Res. 492, resolution on teachers

    H. Res. 492, introduced by Representative Kay Granger (R-
TX), expresses support of the House of Representatives for 
America's teachers. The resolution was referred to the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce on May 4, 2000. On May 
9, 2000, the resolution was considered under the suspension of 
the rules and agreed to by a vote of 422 to 0.

H. Res. 509, African-American music resolution

    H. Res. 509, introduced by Representative Chaka Fattah (D-
PA), recognizes the contributions of African-American music to 
global culture and the positive impact the music has had upon 
global commerce; the resolution calls upon the people of the 
United States to take the opportunity to study, reflect upon, 
and celebrate the majesty, vitality, and importance of African-
American music. H. Res. 509 was introduced and referred to the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce on May 23, 2000. On 
June 6, 2000 the resolution passed the House, as amended, under 
suspension of the rules by a vote of 382-0.

H. Res. 522, fatherhood resolution

    H. Res. 522, introduced by Representative Joseph Pitts (R-
PA), recognizes that the creation of a better America depends 
in large part upon the active involvement of fathers in the 
rearing and development of their children. It also expresses 
support for the National Fatherhood Initiative and its work to 
inspire and equip fathers to be positively involved in the 
lives of their children. H. Res. 522 was introduced and 
referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce on 
June 9, 2000. On June 19, 2000 the resolution passed the House 
of Representatives under suspension of the rules by voice vote.

H. Res. 552, resolution on mentoring

    H. Res. 552, introduced by Representative David Wu (D-OR), 
recognizes the importance of mentoring and enrichment programs 
that encourage young people to enter mathematics, science, 
engineering, and technology related fields. H. Res. 552 was 
introduced and referred to the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce on July 13, 2000. The resolution was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families on August 
22, 2000. On December 15, 2000, the resolution was considered 
and passed by the House of Representatives by unanimous 
consent.

H. Res. 578, resolution on home schooling

    H. Res. 578, introduced by Representative Bob Schaffer (R-
CO), recognizes and congratulates home educators and home 
schooled students across the nation for their ongoing 
contributions to education and for the roles they play in 
promoting and ensuring a brighter, stronger future for this 
nation. H. Res. 578 was introduced and referred to the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce on September 14, 2000. 
The resolution passed the House of Representatives under 
suspension of the rules by voice vote on September 26, 2000.

                   II. Hearings Held by the Committee


106th Congress, First Session

    January 27, 1999--Straight Talk: Leadership in State and 
Community Education Reforms (106-1).
    January 28, 1999--Hearing on Implementing School Reform in 
the States and Communities (106-2).
    February 11, 1999--The Administration's Education Proposals 
and Priorities for Fiscal Year 2000 (106-3).
    April 11, 1999--Hearing on Title I of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act: An (106-20).
    April 27, 1999--Hearing on Minimum Wage: Reviewing Recent 
Evidence of its Impact on (106-29).
    May 12, 1999--Hearing on Even Start and Family Literacy 
Programs Under The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (106-
35).
    May 20, 1999--Hearing on Academic Achievement for All: 
Increasing Flexibility and Improving Student Performance and 
Accountability (106-41).
    June 10, 1999--Hearing on Key Issues in the Authorization 
of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (106-
46).
    June 17, 1999--Joint Hearing on Overview of Federal 
Education Research and Evaluation Efforts (106-48).
    July 1, 1999--Hearing on Business Community Views on Reform 
and Elementary and Secondary Education Act (106-55).
    July 13, 1999--Hearing on Comprehensive School Reform: 
Current Status and Issues (106-58).
    July 22, 1999--Hearing on Helping Migrant, Neglected and 
Delinquent Children Succeed in School (106-61).
    July 27, 1999--Hearing on Title I: What's Happening at the 
School District and School Building Level (106-64).
    October 7, 1999--Hearing on Examining the Impact of the 
Minimum Wage on Welfare to Work (106-29).

106th Congress, Second Session

    April 20, 2000--Field Hearing on Academic Achievement For 
All, Lexington, KY (106-102).
    June 1, 2000--Field Hearing on Excellence In Teaching, 
Indianapolis, IN (106-110).
    August 24, 2000--Field Hearing on IDEA and School 
Discipline, Corryton, TN (106-117).
    September 21, 2000--Hearing on The National and Economic 
Importance of Improved Math-Science Education and H.R. 4272, 
The National Science Education Enhancement Act (106-125).
    September 22, 2000--Hearing on Using Technology to Learn 
and Learning to Use Technology (106-124).
    September 26, 2000--Hearing on the Importance of Literacy 
(106-127).
    September 27, 2000--Hearing on Urban Renewal in Minority 
Communities (106-126).
    September 28, 2000--The Success of Charter Schools (106-
129).
    October 25, 2000--Waste, Fraud, and Program Implementation 
at the U.S. Department of Education (106-134).

                   III. Markups Held by the Committee


106th Congress, First Session

    January 7, 1999--Organizational Markup. Committee Rules for 
the 106th Congress adopted by voice vote. Announcement of 
Subcommittee Assignments.
    February 10, 1999--H.R. 221, To amend the Fair Labor 
Standards Act of 1938 to permit certain youth to perform 
certain work with wood products ordered favorably reported by 
voice vote. Committee Funding Resolution and also the Committee 
Oversight Plan for the 106th Congress were adopted by voice 
vote.
    March 3, 1999--H.R. 800, Education Flexibility Partnership 
Act of 1999 ordered favorably reported, as amended by a vote of 
33-9.
    April 28, 1999--H.R. 905, Missing, Exploited and Runaway 
Children Protection Act ordered favorably reported, as amended 
by voice vote.
    H. Con. Res. 84, Urging the Congress and the President to 
fully fund the Federal Government's obligation under the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ordered favorably 
reported, as amended by a vote of 38-4.
    H. Con. Res. 88, Urging the Congress and the President to 
increase funding for the Pell Grant Program and existing 
Campus-Based Aid Programs ordered favorably reported by a vote 
of 36-10.
    June 23, 1999--H.R. 987, Workplace Preservation Act ordered 
favorably reported by a vote of 23-18. H.R. 1381, Rewarding 
Performance in Compensation Act ordered favorably reported, as 
amended by a vote of 26-22.
    June 30, 1999--H.R. 1995, Teacher Empowerment Act ordered 
favorably reported, as amended by a vote 27-19.
    July 14, 1999--H.R. 1102, Comprehensive Retirement Security 
and Pension Reform Act of 1999 ordered favorably reported, as 
amended by voice vote.
    July 29, 1999--H.R. 1441, Truth in Employment Act of 1999 
ordered favorably reported by a vote of 21-18.
    H.R. 1987, Fair Access to Indemnity and Reimbursement Act 
ordered favorably reported, as amended by a vote of 24-19.
    September 15, 1999--H.R. 782--Older Americans Act 
Amendments of 1999 ordered favorably reported with amendments 
by voice vote.
    October 5, 6, 7 & 13, 1999--H.R. 2--Student Results Act of 
1999 ordered favorably reported, as amended (42-6). H.R. 2300--
Academic Achievement for All Act ordered favorably reported, as 
amended (26-19).
    November 3, 1999--H.R. 1693--To amend the Fair Labor 
Standards Act of 1938 to clarify the overtime exemption for 
employees engaged in fire protection activities ordered 
favorably reported by voice vote.
    H.R. 2434--Worker Paycheck Fairness Act of 1999 ordered 
favorably reported (25-22). H.R. 3172--To amend the welfare-to-
work program and modify the welfare-to-work performance bonus 
ordered favorably reported, as amended by voice vote.

106th Congress, Second Session

    February 16, 2000--H.R. 3222--Literacy Involves Families 
Together Act (LIFT) ordered favorably reported, as amended by 
voice vote.
    H.R. 3616--Impact Aid Reauthorization Act of 2000 ordered 
favorably reported, as amended by voice vote.
    April 5, 6, 11, 12, & 13, 2000--H.R. 4141--Education 
Opportunities To Protect and Invest In Our Nation's Students 
(Education OPTIONS) Act ordered favorably reported, as amended 
(25-21).
    April 12, 2000--H.R. 3629--To amend the Higher Education 
Act of 1965 to improve the program for American Indian Tribal 
Colleges and Universities under part A of title III ordered 
favorably reported by voice vote.
    H.R. 4055--IDEA Full Funding Act of 2000 ordered favorably 
reported by voice vote.
    H.R. 4141--Education OPTIONS (continued from April 11, 
2000)
    May 10, 2000--H.R. 4402--Training and Education for 
American Workers Act of 2000 ordered favorably reported, as 
amended by voice vote.
    May 25, 2000--H.R. 4504--Higher Education Technical 
Amendments of 2000 ordered favorably reported, as amended by 
voice vote.
    H.R. 4079--To require the Comptroller General of the United 
States to conduct a comprehensive fraud audit of the Department 
of Education ordered favorably reported, as amended by voice 
vote.
    June 21, 2000--H.R. 3462--Wealth Through the Workplace Act 
of 2000 ordered favorably reported, as amended by voice vote.

                       IV. Legislative Activities


     a. legislation enacted into law (bills referred to committee)

    1. H.R. 782: To amend the Older Americans Act of 1965 to 
authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2000 through 2003. 
``Older Americans Act Amendments''. Sponsor: Rep. Bill 
Barrett--P.L. 106-501.
    2. H.R. 800: To provide for education flexibility 
partnerships. ``Dollars to the Classroom Act''. Sponsor: Rep. 
Castle--P.L. 106-25.
    3. H.R. 1693: To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 
to clarify the overtime exemption for employees engaged in fire 
protection activities. Sponsor: Rep. Ehrlich--P.L. 106-151.
    4. H.R. 1832: To reform unfair and anticompetitive 
practices in the professional boxing industry. ``Muhammad Ali 
Boxing Reform Act''. Sponsor: Rep. Oxley--P.L. 106-210.
    5. H.R. 2909: To provide for implementation by the United 
States of the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and 
Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, and for other 
purposes. ``Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000''. Sponsor: Rep. 
Gilman--P.L. 106-279.
    6. H.R. 3629: To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to 
improve the program for American Indian Tribal Colleges and 
Universities under part A of title III. Sponsor: Rep Mark 
Green--P.L. 106-211.
    7. H.R. 4542: To designate the Washington Opera in 
Washington, D.C., as the National Opera. Sponsor: Rep. 
Goodling--P.L. 106-219.
    8. H.R. 5178: To require changes in the bloodborne 
pathogens standard in effect under the Occupational Safety and 
Health Act of 1970. ``Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act''. 
Sponsor: Rep Ballenger--P.L. 106-430.
    9. S. 249: A bill to provide funding for the National 
Center for Missing and Exploited Children, to reauthorize the 
Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, and for other purposes. 
``Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children Protection Act''. 
Sponsor: Sen. Hatch--P.L. 106-71.
    10. S. 380: A bill to reauthorize the Congressional Award 
Act. Sponsor: Sen. Craig--P.L. 106-63. Committees.
    11. S. 1455: A bill to enhance protections against fraud in 
the offering of financial assistance for college education, and 
for other purposes. ``College Scholarship Fraud Prevention 
Act''. Sponsor: Sen. Abraham--P.L. 106-420.
    12. S. 1809: A bill to improve service systems for 
individuals with developmental disabilities, and for other 
purposes. ``Development Disabilities Assistance and Bill of 
Rights Act''. Sponsor: Sen. Jeffords.--P.L. 106-402.

   b. legislation enacted into law (bills not referred to committee)

    1. H.R. 1180 (P.L. 106-170) Ticket to Work and Work 
Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 (Section 409, student loan 
special allowance adjustment).
    2. H.R. 1654, (P.L. 106-391) National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration Authorization Act of 2000 (Section 317, 100th 
Anniversary of Flight educational initiative).
    3. H.R. 2559 (P.L. 106-224) Agricultural Risk Protection 
Act of 2000 (Title II, subtitle E, includes Child and Adult 
Care Food Integrity Act and Emergency Commodity Distribution 
Act).
    4. H.R. 3194 (P.L. 106-113) An Act making consolidated 
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000 
and for other purposes (contains provisions in Section 311 
relating to limitation of punitive damages awarded against 
institutions of higher learning; higher education provisions 
including Web-Based Education Commission; and Section 314 
relating to voter registration of college students).
    5. H.R. 3244 (P.L. 106-386) Victims of Trafficking and 
Violence Protection Act of 2000 (Title I, Section 1108, school 
and campus security; Title II, Sections 1202, 1203, 1204, 
strengthening services to victims of violence; Section 1601, 
campus crime provisions).
    6. H.R. 4205 (P.L. 106-398) Floyd D. Spence National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Title XVIII 
impact aid provisions); includes text of H.R. 5408.
    7. H.R. 4425 (P.L. 106-246), Military Construction 
Appropriations Act for FY 2001 (contains provisions in Section 
2405 relating to Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act 
extending the effective date for six months).
    8. H.R. 4577 (P.L. 106-554) Consolidated Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (contains provisions of H.R. 2725, Rural Education 
Initiative Act; provisions of H.R. 3222, Literacy Involves 
Families Together Act (LIFT); and provisions of H.R. 4766, 
Classroom Modernization Act of 2000.
    9. H.R. 4788 (P.L. 106-472) United States Grain Standards 
Reauthorization Act of 2000 (provisions in Title III, include 
changes to child and adult care food and commodity 
distribution).
    10. H.R. 5528 (P.L. 106-568) Omnibus Indian Advancement Act 
(contains H.R. 4725, To amend the Zuni Land Conservation Act of 
1990 to provide for the expenditure of Zuni funds by that 
tribe; H.R. 3080, American Indian Education Foundation Act of 
1999; and provisions of H.R. 4631, Native Nations Institute for 
Leadership, Management, and Policy Act of 2000).
    11. S. 447 (P.L. 106-3) To deem as timely filed, and 
process for payment, the applications submitted by the Dodson 
School Districts for certain Impact Aid payments for fiscal 
year 1999.
    12. S. 1059 (P.L. 106-65) National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (includes impact aid provisions in 
Sections 351 and 354; education and training provisions in 
Section 549; matters relating to military recruiting in Section 
571; Section 674, Overseas Special Supplemental Food Program; 
and Title XVII, improvement and transfer of Troops to Teachers 
Program.
    13. S. 1309 (P.L. 106-244) Church Plan Parity and 
Entanglement Prevention Act of 1999 (includes ERISA 
provisions).
    14. S. 2045 (P.L. 106-313) American Competitiveness in the 
Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 (contains provisions of H.R. 
4402, Training and Education for American Workers Act of 2000 
and in Section 112, the bill H.R. 4178, Kids Act 2000).
    15. S. 2323 (P.L. 106-202) Worker Economic Opportunity Act 
(H.R. 4109 and H.R. 4182 are identical bills).
    16. S. 2789 (P.L. 106-533) Congressional Recognition for 
Excellence in Arts Education Act (H.R. 5554 is an identical 
bill).

     c. legislation passed the house (bills referred to committee)

    1. H.R. 2: To send more dollars to the classroom and for 
certain other purposes. ``Dollars to the Classroom Act''. 
Sponsor: Rep. Goodling.
    2. H.R. 221: To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 
to permit certain youth to perform certain work with wood 
products. Sponsor: Rep. Pitts.
    3. H.R. 417: To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
1971 to reform the financing of campaigns for elections for 
Federal office, and for other purposes. ``Bipartisan Campaign 
Finance Reform Act of 1999''. Sponsor: Rep. Shays.
    4. H.R. 782: To amend the Older Americans Act of 1965 to 
authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2000 through 2003. 
``Older Americans Act Amendments''. Sponsor: Rep. Barrett.
    5. H.R. 800: To provide for education flexibility 
partnerships. ``Ed-Flex Partnerships Act''. Sponsor: Rep. 
Castle.
    6. H.R. 987: To require the Secretary of Labor to wait for 
completion of a National Academy of Sciences study before 
promulgating a standard or guideline on ergonomics. ``Workplace 
Preservation Act''. Sponsor: Rep. Blunt.
    7. H.R. 1102: To provide for pension reform, and for other 
purposes. ``Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension 
Reform Act''. Sponsor: Rep. Portman.
    8. H.R. 1248: To prevent violence against women. ``Violence 
Against Women Act''. Sponsor: Rep. Morella.
    9. H.R. 1693: To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 
to clarify the overtime exemption for employees engaged in fire 
protection activities. Sponsor: Rep. Ehrlich.
    10. H.R. 1832: To reform unfair and anticompetitive 
practices in the professional boxing industry. ``Muhammad Ali 
Boxing Reform Act''. Sponsor: Rep. Oxley.
    11. H.R. 1995: To amend the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act of 1965 to empower teachers, improve student 
achievement through high-quality professional development for 
teachers, reauthorize the Reading Excellence Act, and for other 
purposes. ``Teacher Empowerment Act''. Sponsor: Rep. McKeon.
    12. H.R. 2300: To allow a State to combine certain funds to 
improve the academic achievement of all its students. 
``Academic Achievement for All (Straight A's) Act''. Sponsor: 
Rep. Goodling.
    13. H.R. 2723: To amend title I of the Employee Retirement 
Income Security Act of 1974, title XXVII of the Public Health 
Service Act, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect 
consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage. 
``Bipartisan Consensus Managed Care Improvement Act of 1999''. 
Sponsor: Rep. Norwood.
    14. H.R. 2909: To provide for implementation by the United 
States of the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and 
Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, and for other 
purposes. ``Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000''. Sponsor: Rep. 
Gilman.
    15. H.R. 2990: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
to allow individuals greater access to health insurance through 
a health care tax deduction, a long-term care deduction, and 
other health-related tax incentives, to amend the Employee 
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to provide access to and 
choice in health care through association health plans, to 
amend the Public Health Service Act to create new pooling 
opportunities for small employers to obtain greater access to 
health coverage through HealthMarts, and for other purposes. 
``Patients'' Bill of Rights Plus Act''. Sponsor: Rep. Talent.
    16. H.R. 3073: To amend part A of title IV of the Social 
Security Act to provide for grants for projects designed to 
promote responsible fatherhood, and for other purposes. 
``Fathers Count Act of 1999''. Sponsor: Rep. Nancy Johnson.
    17. H.R. 3081: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
to provide tax benefits for small businesses, to amend the Fair 
Labor Standards Act of 1938 to increase the minimum wage, and 
for other purposes. ``Small Business Tax Fairness Act of 
2000''. Sponsor: Rep. Lazio.
    18. H.R. 3222: To amend the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act of 1965 to improve literacy through family 
literacy projects. ``Literacy Involves Families Together (LIFT) 
Act''. Sponsor: Rep. Goodling.
    19. H.R. 3234: To exempt certain reports from automatic 
elimination and sunset pursuant to the Federal Reports and 
Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995. Sponsor: Rep. Goodling.
    20. H.R. 3616: To reauthorize the impact aid program under 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and for 
other purposes. ``Impact Aid Reauthorization Act''. Sponsor: 
Rep. Hayes.
    21. H.R. 3629: To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to 
improve the program for American Indian Tribal Colleges and 
Universities under part A of title III. Sponsor: Rep. Mark 
Green.
    22. H.R. 3846: To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 
1938 to increase the minimum wage, and for other purposes. 
Sponsor: Rep. Shimkus.
    23. H.R. 4055: To authorize appropriations for part B of 
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to achieve full 
funding for part B of that Act by 2010. ``IDEA Full Funding Act 
of 2000''. Sponsor: Rep. Goodling.
    24. H.R. 4079: To require the Comptroller General of the 
United States to conduct a comprehensive fraud audit of the 
Department of Education. Sponsor: Rep. Hoekstra.
    25. H.R. 4216: To amend the Workforce Investment Act of 
1998 to authorize reimbursement to employers for portable 
skills training. ``Customized Training Flexibility Act''. 
Sponsor: Rep. Radanovich.
    26. H.R. 4504: To make technical amendments to the Higher 
Education Act of 1965. ``Higher Education Technical Amendments 
of 2000''. Sponsor: Rep. McKeon.
    27. H.R. 4542: To designate the Washington Opera in 
Washington, D.C., as the National Opera. Sponsor: Rep. 
Goodling.
    28. H.R. 4678: To provide more child support money to 
families leaving welfare, to simplify the rules governing the 
assignment and distribution of child support collected by 
States on behalf of children, to improve the collection of 
child support, to promote marriage, and for other purposes. 
``Child Support Distribution Act of 2000''. Sponsor: Rep. Nancy 
Johnson.
    29. H.R. 4920: To improve service systems for individuals 
with developmental disabilities, and for other purposes. 
``Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act 
of 2000''. Sponsor: Rep. Lazio.
    30. H.R. 5034: To expand loan forgiveness for teachers, and 
for other purposes. ``Quality Teacher Recruitment and Retention 
Act of 2000''. Sponsor: Rep. Graham.
    31. H.R. 5123: To require the Secretary of Education to 
provide notification to States and State educational agencies 
regarding the availability of certain administrative funds to 
establish school safety hotlines. Sponsor: Rep. Tancredo.
    32. H.R. 5178: To require changes in the bloodborne 
pathogens standard in effect under the Occupational Safety and 
Health Act of 1970. ``Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act''. 
Sponsor: Rep. Ballenger.
    33. H. Con. Res. 76: Recognizing the social problem of 
child abuse and neglect, and supporting efforts to enhance 
public awareness of it. Sponsor: Rep. Salmon.
    34. H. Con. Res. 84: Urging the Congress and the President 
to fully fund the Federal Government's obligation under the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Sponsor: Rep. 
Goodling.
    35. H. Con. Res. 88: Urging the Congress and the President 
to increase funding for the Pell Grant Program and existing 
Campus-Based Aid Programs. Sponsor: Rep. McKeon.
    36. H. Con. Res. 92: Expressing the sense of Congress with 
respect to the tragic shooting at Columbine High School in 
Littleton, Colorado. Sponsor: Rep. Tancredo.
    37. H. Con. Res. 93: Expressing the sense of the Congress 
regarding the social problem of child abuse and neglect and 
supporting efforts to enhance public awareness of this problem. 
Sponsor: Rep. Pryce.
    38. H. Con. Res. 107: Expressing the sense of Congress 
rejecting the conclusions of a recent article published by the 
American Psychological Association that suggests that sexual 
relationships between adults and children might be positive for 
children. Sponsor: Rep. Salmon.
    39. H. Con. Res. 191: Expressing the sense of Congress that 
the Brooklyn Museum of Art should not receive Federal funds 
unless it cancels its upcoming exhibit featuring works of a 
sacrilegious nature. Sponsor: Rep. Sweeney.
    40. H. Con. Res. 194: Recognizing the contributions of 4-H 
Clubs and their members to voluntary community service. 
Sponsor: Rep. Deal.
    41. H. Con. Res. 213: Encouraging the Secretary of 
Education to promote, and State and local educational agencies 
to incorporate in their education programs, financial literacy 
training. Sponsor: Rep. Dreier.
    42. H. Con. Res. 229: Expressing the sense of Congress 
regarding the United States Congressional Philharmonic Society 
and its mission of promoting musical excellence throughout the 
educational system and encouraging people of all ages to commit 
to the love and expression of musical performance. Sponsor: 
Rep. Tom Davis.
    43. H. Con. Res. 266: Expressing the sense of the Congress 
regarding the benefits of music education. Sponsor: Rep. 
McIntosh.
    44. H. Con. Res. 288: Recognizing the importance of 
families and children in the United States and expressing 
support for the goals and ideas of National Family Day. 
Sponsor: Rep. Toomey.
    45. H. Con. Res. 309: Expressing the sense of the Congress 
with regard to in-school personal safety education programs for 
children. Sponsor: Rep. Castle.
    46. H. Con. Res. 310: Supporting a National Charter Schools 
Week. Sponsor: Rep. Roemer.
    47. H. Con. Res. 343: Expressing the sense of the Congress 
regarding the importance of families eating together. Sponsor: 
Rep. Rangel.
    48. H. Con. Res. 375: Recognizing the importance of 
children in the United States and supporting the goals and 
ideas of National Youth Day. Sponsor: Rep. McCollum.
    49. H. Con. Res. 399: Recognizing the 25th anniversary of 
the enactment of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act 
of 1975. Sponsor: Rep. Goodling.
    50. H. Res. 157: Expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives in support of America's teachers. Sponsor: Rep. 
Granger.
    51. H. Res. 207: Expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives with regard to community renewal through 
community- and faith-based organizations. Sponsor: Rep. Pitts.
    52. H. Res. 280: Recognizing the importance of strong 
marriages and the contributions that community marriage 
policies have made to the strength of marriages throughout the 
United States. Sponsor: Rep. Ehlers.
    53. H. Res. 303: Expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives urging that 95 percent of Federal education 
dollars be spent in the classroom. Sponsor: Rep. Pitts.
    54. H. Res. 409: Honoring the contributions of Catholic 
schools. Sponsor: Rep. Schaffer.
    55. H. Res. 456: Expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives to acknowledge and highlight the efforts of the 
Arapahoe Rescue Patrol of Littleton, Colorado. Sponsor: Rep. 
Tancredo.
    56. H. Res. 465: Expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives that local, State, and Federal governments 
should collect and disseminate statistics on the number of 
newborn babies abandoned in public places. Sponsor: Rep. Nancy 
Johnson.
    57. H. Res. 492: Expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives in support of America's teachers. Sponsor: Rep. 
Granger.
    58. H. Res. 509: 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. Sponsor: Rep. Fattah.
    59. H. Res. 522: Expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives regarding the importance of responsible 
fatherhood. Sponsor: Rep. Pitts.
    60. H. Res. 552: Urging the House to support mentoring 
programs such as Saturday Academy at the Oregon Graduate 
Institute of Science and Technology. Sponsor: Wu.
    61. H. Res. 578: Congratulating home educators and home 
schooled students across the Nation for their ongoing 
contributions to education and for the role they play in 
promoting and ensuring a brighter, stronger future for this 
Nation, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep. Schaffer.
    62. S. 249: A bill to provide funding for the National 
Center for Missing and Exploited Children, to reauthorize the 
Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, and for other purposes. 
``Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children Protection Act''. 
Sponsor: Sen. Hatch.
    63. S. 380: A bill to reauthorize the Congressional Award 
Act. Sponsor: Sen. Craig.
    64. S. 1455: A bill to enhance protections against fraud in 
the offering of financial assistance for college education, and 
for other purposes. ``College Scholarship Fraud Prevention 
Act''. Sponsor: Sen. Abraham.
    65. S. 1809: A bill to improve service systems for 
individuals with developmental disabilities, and for other 
purposes. ``Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of 
Rights Act of 1999''. Sponsor: Sen. Jeffords.

           d. legislation passed the house in another measure

    1. H.R. 905, Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children 
Protection Act, passed in S. 249, Missing, Exploited, Runaway 
Children Protection Act.
    2. H.R. 1102, Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension 
Reform Act passed the House in H.R. 3081, Small Business Tax 
Fairness Act of 2000; H.R. 2488, Financial Freedom Act of 1999 
and H.R. 2614, Certified Development Company Program 
Improvements Act of 2000.
    3. H.R. 1150, Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency 
Prevention Act of 1999, provisions incorporated into H.R. 1501, 
Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act and S. 249, Missing, 
Exploited, Runaway Children Protection Act.
    4. H.R. 1248, Violence Against Women Act, provisions passed 
in H.R. 3244, Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection 
Act of 2000.
    5. H.R. 1302, Sales Incentive Compensation Act, passed 
House as part of H.R. 3081, Small Business Tax Fairness Act of 
2000.
    6. H.R. 1779, Overseas Special Supplemental Food Program 
Amendments of 1999, passed in S. 1059, National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000.
    7. H.R. 2723, Bipartisan Consensus Managed Care Improvement 
Act of 1999, passed in H.R. 2990, Quality Care for the 
Uninsured Act of 1999.
    8. H.R. 2725, Rural Education Initiative Act, provisions 
incorporated into H.R. 4577, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 
2001.
    9. H.R. 3073, Fathers Count Act of 1999, provisions 
incorporated into H.R. 4678, Child Support Distribution Act of 
2000.
    10. H.R. 3080, American Indian Education Foundation Act of 
1999, passed in H.R. 5528, Omnibus Indian Advancement Act.
    11. H.R. 3172, Welfare-To-Work Amendments of 1999, 
provisions incorporated into H.R. 3073, Fathers Count Act and 
H.R. 4678, Child Support Distribution Act of 2000.
    12. H.R. 3222, Literacy Involves Families Together Act 
(LIFT), provisions incorporated into H.R. 4577, Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2001.
    13. H.R. 3614, Emergency Commodity Distribution Act of 
2000, provisions incorporated into H.R. 2559, Agricultural Risk 
Protection Act of 2000.
    14. H.R. 3616, Impact Aid Reauthorization Act of 2000, 
provisions passed in H.R. 4205, National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2000.
    15. H.R. 3846, To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 
1938 to increase the minimum wage, passed in H.R. 3081, Small 
Business Tax Fairness Act of 2000.
    16. H.R. 4178, Kids 2000 Act, passed the House in S. 2045, 
American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 
2000.
    17. H.R. 4182 and H.R. 4109, Worker Economic Opportunity 
Act, identical to the language in S. 2323.
    18. H.R. 4402, Training and Education for American Workers 
Act of 2000, provisions passed in S. 2045, American 
Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000.
    19. H.R. 4407, Campus Protection Act, provisions passed in 
H.R. 3244, Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act 
of 2000.
    20. H.R. 4520, Child and Adult Care Food Program Integrity 
Act of 2000, provisions incorporated into H.R. 2559, 
Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000.
    21. H.R. 4631, Native Nations Institute for Leadership, 
Management, and Policy Act of 2000, provisions passed in H.R. 
5528, Omnibus Indian Advancement Act.
    22. H.R. 4725, To amend the Zuni Land Conservation Act of 
1990 to provide for the expenditure of Zuni funds by that 
tribe, passed in H.R. 5528, Omnibus Indian Advancement Act.
    23. H.R. 4766, Classroom Modernization Act of 2000, 
provisions incorporated into H.R. 4577, Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2001.
    24. H.R. 4920, Developmental Disabilities Assistance and 
Bills of Rights Act of 2000, passed in S. 1809, Developmental 
Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000.
    25. H.R. 5408, Floyd D. Spence National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, passed in the 
conference report to H.R. 4205.
    26. H.R. 5538, Minimum Wage Act of 2000, passed in the 
conference report to H.R. 2614, Certified Development Company 
Program Improvements Act of 2000.
    27. H.R. 5542, To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
to provide tax relief, includes ERISA provisions of H.R. 1102, 
Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform Act, and 
was incorporated into H.R. 2614, Certified Development Company 
Program Improvements Act of 2000.
    28. H.R. 5554, To amend the Congressional Award Act to 
establish a Congressional Recognition for Excellence in Arts 
Education Board, is identical to the language in S. 2789.
    29. H. Con. Res. 366, Expressing the sense of the Congress 
regarding the importance and value of education in United 
States history, is identical to the language in S. Con. 
Res.129.

  e. bills not referred to committee that passed the house containing 
             provisions under the committee's jurisdiction

    1. H.R. 1180, Ticket to Work and Work Incentives 
Improvement Act of 1999, includes higher education provisions.
    2. H.R. 1304, Quality Health-Care Coalition Bill.
    3. H.R. 1401, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2000, includes provisions passed the House in S. 1059 
under the committee's jurisdiction.
    4. H.R. 1501, Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act, 
includes text of H.R. 1150, Juvenile Crime Control and 
Delinquency Prevention Act of 1999 and provisions of H.R. 905, 
Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children Protection Act.
    5. H.R. 1654, National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
Authorization Act of 1999, includes a provision on 100th 
Anniversary of Flight education.
    6. H.R. 2488, Financial Freedom Act of 1999, includes text 
of H.R. 1102, Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension 
Reform Act.
    7. H.R. 2559, Agriculture Risk Protection Act of 1999, 
contains provisions from H.R. 3614, Emergency Commodity 
Distribution Act of 2000; and H.R. 4520, Child and Adult Care 
Food Program Integrity Act of 2000.
    8. H.R. 2614, Certified Development Company Program 
Improvements Act of 2000, conference report passed the House 
containing H.R. 5538, Minimum Wage Act of 2000 and ERISA 
provisions of H.R. 1102, Comprehensive Retirement and Security 
Pension Reform Act as incorporated in H.R. 5542, To amend the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax relief.
    9. H.R. 3194, Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY 2000 
contains provisions relating to limitation of punitive damages 
awarded against institutions of higher learning; web based 
commission; voter registration materials to students.
    10. H.R. 3244, Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, 
contains provisions of H.R. 1248, Violence Against Women Act of 
2000 and H.R. 4407, Campus Protection Act.
    11. H.R. 4205, Floyd D. Spence National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, contains provisions 
under the committee jurisdiction in sections 341, 342, 
504,1106; H.R. 3616 impact aid provisions were included as 
Title XVIII; conference report incorporates H.R. 5408.
    12. H.R. 4425, Military Construction Appropriations Act, 
2001, contains provisions relating to Section 508 of the 
Rehabilitation Act extending the effective date for six months.
    13. H.R. 5528, Omnibus Indian Advancement Act, contains 
H.R. 4725, To amend the Zuni Land Conservation Act of 1990 to 
provide for the expenditure of Zuni funds by that tribe; H.R. 
3080, American Indian Education Foundation Act of 1999; and 
provisions of H.R. 4631, Native Nations Institute for 
Leadership, Management, and Policy Act of 2000.
    14. H. Con. Res. 68, Congressional Budget Resolution for 
Fiscal Year 2000, contains provisions relating to IDEA, dollars 
to the classroom, and welfare-to-work.
    15. S. 447, A bill to deem as timely filed, and process for 
payment, the applications submitted by the Dodson School 
Districts for certain Impact Aid payments for fiscal year 1999.
    16. S. 1059, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2000, contains provisions under the committee's 
jurisdiction in Sections 341 and 343, relating to impact aid; 
Section 549, relating to education and training; Section 567, 
relating to military recruitment; and Section 673, overseas 
supplemental food program.
    17. S. 1309, Church Plan Parity and Entanglement Prevention 
Act of 1999, contains ERISA provisions within the committee's 
jurisdiction.
    18. S. 2045, American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first 
Century Act of 2000, contains provisions of H.R. 4402, Training 
and Education for American Workers Act of 2000 and H.R. 4178, 
Kids Act 2000.
    19. S. 2323, ``Worker Economic Opportunity Act, is 
identical to the language in H.R. 4109 and H.R. 4182.
    20. S. 2789, Congressional Recognition for Excellence in 
Arts Education, is identical to the language in H.R. 5554.
    21. S. Con. Res.129, Expressing the sense of the Congress 
regarding the importance and value of education in the United 
States history, is identical to the language in H. Con. Res. 
366.

                   f. legislation with filed reports

    1. H.R. 2--Student Results Act of 1999 ordered favorably 
reported, as amended by a vote of 42-6.--H. Rpt. 106-394, Part 
1.
    2. H.R. 2--Student Results Act of 1999 ordered favorably 
reported, as amended by a vote of 42-6.--H. Rpt. 106-394, Part 
2.
    3. H.R. 221--To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 
to permit certain youth to perform certain work with wood 
products ordered favorably reported by voice vote.--H. Rpt. 
106-31.
    4. H.R. 782--Older Americans Act Amendments of 1999 ordered 
favorably reported with amendments by voice vote.--H. Rpt. 106-
343.
    5. H.R. 800--Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 
ordered favorably reported, as amended by a vote of 33-9.--H. 
Rpt. 106-43.
    6. H.R. 905--Missing, Exploited and Runaway Children 
Protection Act ordered favorably reported, as amended by voice 
vote.--H. Rpt. 106-152.
    7. H.R. 987--Workplace Preservation Act ordered favorably 
reported by a vote of 23-18.--H. Rpt. 106-272.
    8. H.R. 1102--Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension 
Reform Act of 1999 ordered favorably reported, as amended by 
voice vote.--H. Rpt. 106-331, Part 1.
    9. H.R. 1441--Truth in Employment Act of 1999 ordered 
favorably reported by a vote of 21-18.--H. Rpt. 106-967.
    10. H.R. 1381--Rewarding Performance in Compensation Act 
ordered favorably reported, as amended by a vote of 26-22.--H. 
Rpt. 106-358.
    11. H.R. 1987--Fair Access to Indemnity and Reimbursement 
Act ordered favorably reported, as amended by a vote of 24-
19.--H. Rpt. 106-385.
    12. H.R. 1995--Teacher Empowerment Act ordered favorably 
reported, as amended by a vote 27-19.--H. Rpt. 106-232, Part 1.
    13. H.R. 2300--Academic Achievement for All Act ordered 
favorably reported, as amended by a vote of 26-19.--H. Rpt. 
106-386.
    14. H.R. 2434--Worker Paycheck Fairness Act of 1999 ordered 
favorably reported by a vote of 25-22.--H. Rpt. 106-968.
    15. H.R. 3172--To amend the welfare-to-work program and 
modify the welfare-to-work performance bonus ordered favorably 
reported, as amended by voice vote.--H. Rpt. 106-456, Part 1.
    16. H.R. 3222--Literacy Involves Families Together Act 
(LIFT) ordered favorably reported, as amended by voice vote.--
H. Rpt. 106-503.
    17. H.R. 3616--Impact Aid Reauthorization Act of 2000 
ordered favorably reported, as amended by voice vote.--H. Rpt. 
106-504.
    18. H.R. 4079--To require the Comptroller General of the 
United States to conduct a comprehensive fraud audit of the 
Department of Education ordered favorably reported, as amended 
by voice vote.--H. Rpt. 106-666.
    19. H.R. 4141--Education Opportunities To Protect and 
Invest In Our Nation's Students (Education OPTIONS) Act ordered 
favorably reported, as amended (25-21).--H. Rpt. 106-608.
    20. H.R. 4402--Training and Education for American Workers 
Act of 2000 ordered favorably reported, as amended by voice 
vote.--H. Rpt. 106-642.
    21. H.R. 4504--Higher Education Technical Amendments of 
2000 ordered favorably reported, as amended by voice vote.--H. 
Rpt. 106-665.

          g. legislation ordered reported from full committee

    1. H.R. 2--Student Results Act of 1999 ordered favorably 
reported, as amended by a vote of 42-6.--H. Rpt. 106-394, Part 
1.
    2. H.R. 221--To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 
to permit certain youth to perform certain work with wood 
products ordered favorably reported by voice vote.--H. Rpt. 
106-31.
    3. H.R. 782--Older Americans Act Amendments of 1999 ordered 
favorably reported with amendments by voice vote.--H. Rpt. 106-
343.
    4. H.R. 800--Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 
ordered favorably reported, as amended by a vote of 33-9.--H. 
Rpt. 106-43.
    5. H.R. 905--Missing, Exploited and Runaway Children 
Protection Act ordered favorably reported, as amended by voice 
vote.--H. Rpt. 106-152.
    6. H.R. 987--Workplace Preservation Act ordered favorably 
reported by a vote of 23-18.--H. Rpt. 106-272.
    7. H.R. 1102--Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension 
Reform Act of 1999 ordered favorably reported, as amended by 
voice vote.--H. Rpt. 106-331, Part 1.
    8. H.R. 1441--Truth in Employment Act of 1999 ordered 
favorably reported by a vote of 21-18.--H. Rpt. 106-967.
    9. H.R. 1381--Rewarding Performance in Compensation Act 
ordered favorably reported, as amended by a vote of 26-22.--H. 
Rpt. 106-358.
    10. H.R. 1693--To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 
1938 to clarify the overtime exemption for employees engaged in 
fire protection activities ordered favorably reported by voice 
vote.
    11. H.R. 1987--Fair Access to Indemnity and Reimbursement 
Act ordered favorably reported, as amended by a vote of 24-
19.--H. Rpt. 106-385.
    12. H.R. 1995--Teacher Empowerment Act ordered favorably 
reported, as amended by a vote 27-19.--H. Rpt. 106-232, Part 1.
    13. H.R. 2300--Academic Achievement for All Act ordered 
favorably reported, as amended by a vote of 26-19.--H. Rpt. 
106-386.
    14. H.R. 2434--Worker Paycheck Fairness Act of 1999 ordered 
favorably reported by a vote of 25-22.--H. Rpt. 106-968.
    15. H.R. 3172--To amend the welfare-to-work program and 
modify the welfare-to-work performance bonus ordered favorably 
reported, as amended by voice vote.--H. Rpt. 106-456, Part 1.
    16. H.R. 3222--Literacy Involves Families Together Act 
(LIFT) ordered favorably reported, as amended by voice vote.--
H. Rpt. 106-503.
    17. H.R. 3462--Wealth Through the Workplace Act of 2000 
ordered favorably reported, as amended by voice vote.
    18. H.R. 3616--Impact Aid Reauthorization Act of 2000 
ordered favorably reported, as amended by voice vote.--H. Rpt. 
106-504.
    19. H.R. 3629--To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to 
improve the program for American Indian Tribal Colleges and 
Universities under part A of title III ordered favorably 
reported by voice vote.
    20. H.R. 4055--IDEA Full Funding Act of 2000 ordered 
favorably reported by voice vote.
    21. H.R. 4079--To require the Comptroller General of the 
United States to conduct a comprehensive fraud audit of the 
Department of Education ordered favorably reported, as amended 
by voice vote.--H. Rpt. 106-666.
    22. H.R. 4141--Education Opportunities To Protect and 
Invest In Our Nation's Students (Education OPTIONS) Act ordered 
favorably reported, as amended (25-21).--H. Rpt. 106-608.
    23. H.R. 4402--Training and Education for American Workers 
Act of 2000 ordered favorably reported, as amended by voice 
vote.--H. Rpt. 106-642.
    24. H.R. 4504--Higher Education Technical Amendments of 
2000 ordered favorably reported, as amended by voice vote.--H. 
Rpt. 106-665.
    25. H. Con. Res. 84--Urging the Congress and the President 
to fully fund the Federal Government's obligation under the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ordered favorably 
reported, as amended by a vote of 38-4.
    26. H. Con. Res. 88--Urging the Congress and the President 
to increase funding for the Pell Grant Program and existing 
Campus-Based Aid Programs ordered favorably reported by a vote 
of 36-10.

         V. Committee on Education and the Workforce Statistics

Total Number of Bills and Resolutions Referred....................   654
Total Number of Hearings..........................................    23
    Field.........................................................     3
    Joint with Other Committees...................................     1
Total Number of Full Committee Markup Sessions....................    23
Total Number of Bills Enacted into Law (referred to Committee)....    12
Total Number of Bills Enacted into Law (not referred to Committee)    16
Total Number of Bills Passed the House (referred to Committee)....    65
Total Number of Bills Passed the House in Another Measure.........    29
Total Number of Filed Reports on Bills............................    21
Total Number of Bills Ordered Reported From Full Committee........    26

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS


                        I. Summary of Activities

    In the 106th Congress, the Employer-Employee Relations 
Subcommittee conducted many activities focused on the well-
being and betterment of American workers. The subcommittee held 
numerous hearings and approved legislation that protects 
patients in managed health care plans and holds those plans 
accountable. The subcommittee sought to ensure that American 
workers have adequate retirement security by passing bills to 
provide investment advice for workers with self directed 
retirement accounts and a bill to create a new type of stock 
option retirement plan. The subcommittee held hearings and 
approved legislation that helps workers by leveling the playing 
field for employers and organized labor. The subcommittee also 
oversaw the activities of the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission to ensure that the agency properly carried out its 
duties to protect workers from discrimination in the workplace.

                 a. health care coverage and retirement

ERISA health insurance reform

    In the health care area, the Employer-Employee Relations 
Subcommittee conducted a series of bipartisan hearings on 
health care reform during the first half of 1999. These 
hearings covered topics ranging from expanding affordable 
health care, to the impact of external review, to health care 
costs.
    On February 24, 1999, the subcommittee held a hearing on 
``ERISA: A Quarter Century of Providing Workers Health 
Insurance.'' Through a panel of experts in the area, including 
former staffers who worked on ERISA during its inception, this 
hearing was designed to help educate the members of the 
subcommittee on the origins and meaning of the Employee 
Retirement Security Act (ERISA) as the subcommittee began its 
task of deciding where and how to amend ERISA to improve and 
expand the health care coverage Americans receive through their 
employers.
    The next hearing, on March 25, 1999, focused on ``Expanding 
Affordable Health Care Coverage: Benefits and Consequences of 
Association Health Plans.'' Witnesses from the business 
community, provider sector and a government regulator discussed 
the advantages and disadvantages of such a delivery system. 
Approximately 80 percent of the uninsured either works for or 
has a family member who works for a small employer. Association 
Health Plans (AHPs) address the uninsured group by allowing 
small employers to join a health plan sponsored by a bona fide 
association.
    Continuing this series on April 20, 1999, the subcommittee 
examined ``Employer Health Plan Accountability: Do Plan 
Participants Have Adequate Protections?'' Witnesses, drawn from 
the ranks of plan administrators and doctors, explored the 
various levels of accountability in ERISA health plans and some 
suggested improvements and possible legislative changes.
    On May 6, 1999, the subcommittee deliberated during a 
hearing entitled ``Impact of External Review on Health Care 
Quality'' through the testimony of professionals performing 
external review functions, academics, and an attorney for 
multi-employer plans that have review procedures. The hearing 
examined how external review should guarantee a fair and 
expeditious process, not a specific outcome. At the hearing it 
was stated that ``Congress cannot guarantee an optimal patient 
outcome. Participants should have a right to a fair process for 
reviewing decisions and to a well-informed decision. It may be 
reasonable to punish parties that deny a participant a fair 
process. It is not reasonable to punish parties that provide a 
fair process because that process does not yield a particular 
result.'' This statement captures the essence of the issue: 
patients must have due process in the case of legitimate 
disputes, but not a guaranteed result.
    On June 11, 1999, the subcommittee held its final hearing 
in the series: ``The Relationship Between Health Care Costs and 
America's Uninsured.'' The witnesses, including Congressional 
Budget Office Director Dan Crippen, GAO Officials, 
representatives of insurance companies, research centers, and 
small business, were asked to examine the trade offs that occur 
when additional government regulation is placed on employer 
sponsored health plans. More regulation means higher costs, and 
higher costs means reduced coverage. One of the goals of the 
hearing was for the witnesses to describe the present economic 
and regulatory atmosphere in which the Congress will be making 
these decisions without having to solve all of the policy 
challenges.
    On June 16, 1999, the Employer-Employee Relations 
Subcommittee favorably reported several bills covering certain 
patient protections such as: access to emergency room care, 
pediatricians, and ob-gyn services. The committee also approved 
legislation establishing an external review system for denied 
health claims and Association Health Plans to allow small 
businesses to pool their resources and purchase quality health 
plans for employees comparable to those currently offered by 
large employers. The legislative record for this mark-up was as 
follows:
    H.R. 2041, ``Patient Right to Obstetric and Gynecological 
Care Act of 1999'' was ordered favorably reported amended by a 
roll call vote of 10-7.
    H.R. 2042, ``Health Care Access, Affordability, and Quality 
Advisory Commission Act of 1999'' was ordered favorably 
reported by a roll call vote of 10-9.
    H.R. 2043, ``Patient Right to Unrestricted Medical Advice 
Act of 1999'' was ordered favorably reported amended by a roll 
call vote of 10-7.
    H.R. 2044, ``Patient Right to Pediatric Care Act of 1999'' 
was ordered favorably reported by voice vote.
    H.R. 2045, ``Patient Right to Emergency Medical Care Act of 
1999'' was ordered favorably reported by a roll call vote of 9-
6.
    H.R. 2046, ``Patient Access to Information Act of 1999'' 
was ordered favorably reported amended by a roll call vote of 
9-5.
    H.R. 2047, ``Small Business Access and Choice for 
Entrepreneurs Act of 1999'' was ordered favorably reported by 
voice vote.
    H.R. 2089, ``Group Health Plan Review Standards Act of 
1999'' was ordered favorably reported amended by a roll call 
vote of 11-7.
    These bills became the basis for the ``Comprehensive Access 
and Responsibility in Health Care Act of 1999 (CARE),'' 
sponsored by Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee Chairman 
John Boehner. Commerce Committee Chairman Bliley, Majority 
Leader Armey and Education and Workforce Committee Chairman 
Goodling cosponsored the CARE Act. On October 7, 1999, 
Subcommittee Chairman Boehner managed the CARE Act on the House 
floor as an amendment to HR 2723, the ``Bipartisan Consensus 
Managed Care Improvement Act of 1999,'' which was passed and 
incorporated into HR 2990, the House version of managed care 
reform and health insurance expansion.
    The Senate also passed a managed care reform bill, thereby 
requiring a House-Senate Conference Committee tasked with 
resolving the vast differences between the two proposals. House 
conferees included Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee 
Chairman Boehner, Rep. Jim Talent (R-MO) and Rep. Ernie 
Fletcher (R-KY).
    By the end of the Congressional session, the House-Senate 
Conference was unable to resolve many significant differences 
between the bills that passed the respective chambers. The 
major issues which could not be resolved were: (1) expanded 
liability for makers of certain health benefit decisions that 
are alleged to cause harm and (2) the scope of applicability of 
the new federal mandates.

Reform of the ERISA-based pension system

    Continuing the pattern it established during the first 
session of the 106th Congress, the Employer-Employee Relations 
Subcommittee held a series of bi-partisan hearings on proposals 
for the reform of the ERISA-based pension system. On February 
15, 2000, the subcommittee held its first hearing of the second 
session: ``The Evolving Pension and Investment World After 25 
Years of ERISA.'' A panel of academics and practicing attorneys 
testified that ERISA was intended to provide a safe, honest, 
and efficient structure for protecting the pension benefits of 
America's private sector employees. By and large, it has done 
that and ERISA has been a success story. The witnesses 
maintained that the challenge is keeping it a success story--
making it as reflective and responsive as possible to the 
challenges and opportunities of today's world. Economically, 
that world is a far cry from that of 1974. Instead of 
recession, unemployment, and high inflation, we have robust 
long-term growth, low inflation, and unimagined economic and 
personal opportunities. At this hearing, the witnesses were 
asked to impart to the subcommittee their views on how American 
workers and retirees can take full advantage of those 
opportunities and what changes should be made to the ERISA 
structure and framework to invest pension assets which will 
make American workers' pensions more secure and productive.
    After the introductory hearing, two days of hearings were 
held on March 9-10, 2000, entitled: ``A More Secure Retirement 
for Workers: Proposals for ERISA Reform.'' The witnesses drawn 
from the investment sector and public interest groups gave a 
number of ideas about updating ERISA for the new economy. New 
perspectives on how to provide employees better access to 
sophisticated investment advice and ideas for structural 
reforms that will make the system more efficient and save 
retirees money while preserving the safety that has been 
ERISA's hallmark were presented. Much attention was given to 
the unmistakable trend that indicates workers are more likely 
to be covered by a defined contribution pension plan rather 
than a defined benefit plan. Accordingly, workers need to have 
access to sound investment advice for their self-directed 
investment accounts, although opinions varied as to the best 
sources for this information.
    In order to hear the view of the two federal agencies that 
regulate pensions, the Department of Labor and the Pension 
Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), a hearing entitled 
``Modernizing ERISA to Promote Retirement Security'' was held 
on May 9, 2000. The focus of the hearing was attaining the goal 
of having ERISA's regulatory structure for pension fund 
management ready for the changing pension world today as well 
as those regulatory circumstances that were in existence in 
1974 and continue today.
    Closing out this series on September 14, 2000, the 
subcommittee held a hearing on ``How to Improve Pension 
Coverage for American Workers.'' This hearing concluded the 
session's examination of pension plans under ERISA by 
acknowledging certain factual situations. Most new job growth 
is coming from small employers. Employees are changing jobs--
and careers--faster than ever before. Finally, people are 
living longer. Together, these trends have put significant 
pressures on our retirement security system--both the private 
pension system and Social Security--and, more importantly, on 
the millions of Americans who will be retiring over the next 
several years. According to a recent GAO study, 53% of American 
workers are not covered by pensions. A vibrant Social Security 
program is vital, but private pension coverage is for many 
Americans the difference between a secure and an uncertain 
retirement. The witnesses from small business, research, and 
the practicing bar presented their views as to how Washington 
can lend a hand to expanding coverage without getting in the 
way, and how Congress can strengthen America's retirement 
security system without interfering in the economy and 
unintentionally discouraging pension plan growth.

Retirement security legislation

    The Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations undertook 
two major initiatives relating to retirement and pensions in 
the 106th Congress. On June 29, 1999, the subcommittee held a 
legislative hearing on H.R. 1102, the ``Comprehensive 
Retirement Security and Pension Reform Act of 1999.'' The bill 
makes retirement security more available to millions of workers 
by (1) expanding small business retirement plans, (2) allowing 
workers to save more, (3) addressing the needs of an 
increasingly mobile workforce through greater portability and 
other changes, (4) making pensions more secure, and (5) cutting 
the red tape that has hamstrung employers who want to establish 
pension plans for their employees. On July 14, 1999, the 
committee reported out H.R. 1102 by a bipartisan voice vote.
    Fifteen provisions of Title VI of the bill, containing 
amendments to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 
(ERISA), were added to the tax bill, H.R. 2488, the ``Taxpayer 
Refund and Relief Act of 1999,'' which passed the House and 
Senate on August 5, 1999, but was vetoed by the president. The 
House passed H.R. 1102 on July 19, 2000 by a vote of 401-25 
(although the ERISA provisions were deleted for procedural 
reasons). Twenty-two ERISA provisions from H.R. 1102 were 
included in the ``Retirement Savings and Pension Coverage Act 
of 2000,'' part of H.R. 2614, the ``Taxpayer Relief Act of 
2000'' passed on October 26, 2000.
    These ERISA reforms will significantly contribute to 
expanding pension coverage and improving retirement security 
for workers. The key components include:
     Accelerating the vesting of workers' accounts for 
all employer matching contributions--generally from 5 down to 3 
years;
     Granting relief from excessive Pension Benefit 
Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) premiums for new small business 
defined benefit plans;
     Providing more frequent benefits statements to 
participants in both defined contribution and defined benefit 
plans;
     Repeal and modification of a wide range of 
unnecessary and outdated rules and regulations;
     Permitting small pension plans, those with 25 or 
fewer workers, to file a simplified reporting Form 5500;
     Repeal of the so-called ``full funding limit'' 
that arbitrarily limits defined benefit plan funding to a less 
than actuarially sound level;
     Requiring enhanced disclosure and other 
protections when future pension benefits are reduced (as in the 
case of conversion to a cash balance plan);
     Permitting plans to eliminate complex and 
redundant distribution options that have little or no value to 
the participants;
     Repeal of the rule that discriminates against the 
self-employed in the availability of plan loans;
     Allowing defined contribution plans the option of 
using the PBGC's Missing Participant Program (to help workers 
find pension benefits to which they may be entitled);
     Providing the Department of Labor with the 
discretion to waive certain penalties for fiduciary breaches in 
the context of a settlement; and
     Simplifying pension-funding calculations by 
allowing use of prior-year valuations.
    In the second session of the 106th Congress, the 
subcommittee focused on modernizing ERISA. On February 4, March 
9, March 10, and April 4, the subcommittee held a series of 
bipartisan hearings examining the changes in the financial 
world since the 1974 passage of ERISA and looking for ways for 
American workers and retirees to take advantage of the economic 
opportunities created since then.
    On June 26, 2000, Subcommittee Chairman John Boehner 
introduced the ``Retirement Security Advice Act of 2000,'' H.R. 
4747, to help address the dilemma many workers face in deciding 
how to invest their vital retirement savings, by allowing 
employers to provide their workers with access to professional 
investment advice. The subcommittee favorably reported the 
bill, by voice vote, on July 19, 2000. On July 27, 2000, 
Senator Slade Gorton (R-WA) introduced a companion bill, S. 
2969.
    Under H.R. 4747, employers may provide their workers with 
access to professional investment advice, so long as the 
advisers make a full disclosure concerning their fees and any 
potential conflicts. Advice could only be offered by 
``fiduciary advisers,'' specific qualified and regulated 
entities such as registered investment advisers, who would be 
personally liable for any failure to act solely in the interest 
of the worker. Advisers would still be subject to fiduciary 
liability under ERISA, including civil and criminal 
enforcement. No employer would be required to contract with an 
investment adviser and no employee would have to accept or 
follow any advice. The entire process would be completely 
voluntary.

Church employee benefit plans

    Church Plans, employee benefit plans for the employees of 
churches, come under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on 
Employer-Employee Relations due to their nexus with ERISA. H.R. 
2183, introduced by Rep. Robert Andrews (R-NJ), the ranking 
member of the subcommittee, and co-sponsored by Subcommittee 
Chairman Boehner, dealt with some operational problems that 
have arisen with these plans due to their unique status under 
ERISA.
    Similar to the treatment of health plans for the employees 
of state and local governments, health plans for the employees 
of churches (Church Plans) are defined in ERISA but are then 
excluded from its provisions. Accordingly, they are subject to 
regulation by the individual states, which due to the 
uniqueness and variety of Church Plan financing, creates 
numerous problems for the different denominations. The impetus 
for H.R. 2183 was twofold: (1) the State Insurance Commissioner 
of South Dakota decided to require a number of Church Plans to 
obtain a license as an insurance company, and (2) due to their 
exclusion from ERISA, many insurance companies and health care 
providers are ambivalent about their capacity to contract with 
Church Plans for coverage or services.
    The companion bill in the Senate, S. 1309, was completely 
amended and then passed on November 19, 1999. This amended 
version solved both of these problems by clarifying the status 
of church welfare plans under certain specified state insurance 
law requirements, particularly the need to be ``licensed'' as 
an insurance company. Additionally, the bill allowed a Church 
Plan to be treated as a single employer plan. With this 
clarification under state insurance law and the deeming of 
church plans to be ``single employer plans,'' Church Plans have 
a federal statute defining them as not being insurance 
companies which need to be licensed by individual states. Also, 
the statutory designation as ``single employer plans'' allows 
Church Plans to have greater bargaining power with health 
insurance companies and health network providers when 
purchasing coverage for their employees. However, this ``single 
employer'' phrase does not make them an ERISA welfare plan. 
Therefore, the bill also keeps intact certain regulatory 
responsibility that state insurance departments presently have 
over church plans, i.e., those rules not dealing with licensing 
or solvency such as consumer complaints.
    On June 26, 2000, Mr. Boehner successfully moved that the 
Senate-passed bill be taken from the Speakers Desk where it was 
being held and considered under the Suspension of the Rules 
Calendar. After debate, the House passed the bill, without 
amendment, by voice vote. It was signed by President Clinton 
and became Public Law 106-244 on July 10, 2000.

Employment benefits claims regulations

    In September 1998, the Department of Labor issued a 
proposed rule revising the minimum requirements for benefit 
claims procedures of employee benefit plans covered by Title I 
of ERISA. The proposed regulation would establish new standards 
for the processing of group health disability, pension, and 
other employee benefit plan claims filed by participants 
andbeneficiaries. In the case of group health plans, the new standards 
are intended to ensure greater assurance that participants and 
beneficiaries will be afforded a full and fair review of denied claims.
    Under ERISA, group welfare benefit plans are required to 
provide a full and fair review for disputed benefit claims. In 
1997, the President's Advisory Commission on Consumer 
Protection and Quality in the Health Care Industry reported 
that the process for internal appeals in ERISA plans needed 
improvement. The Department of Labor undertook an effort to 
effectuate the Commission's recommendations. As a result, the 
DOL published proposed regulations in 1998. The public comment 
period produced unprecedented responses--more than 700 comment 
letters from interested parties (plan sponsors, health care 
providers, health insurance companies, third party 
administrators, etc.) and three full days of hearings. The 
overwhelming viewpoint was that the Department overstepped its 
authority and was misguided in its view of how to improve the 
internal appeals process.
    The committee has jurisdiction over Title I of ERISA. 
Therefore, the committee has oversight responsibility for 
related regulations. In this capacity, in two letters to the 
Department, the committee expressed its concerns about the 
direction and timing of activities related to the development 
and issuance of the rules. To date, the rules remain pending 
within the administration.
    In November 1999 the committee wrote: ``We are writing to 
seek your assurance that the Department does not intend to 
finalize your proposed regulations concerning ERISA claims and 
appeals procedures pending completion of congressional 
consideration of managed care reform legislation.''
    ``* * * It is clear to us that it would be inappropriate 
for administrative regulations on ERISA to be issued by the 
Department while these (congressional) deliberations are 
underway.''
    In October 2000, Chairmen Goodling and Boehner wrote: ``In 
November 1999, all members of our committee wrote to you 
seeking your assurances that the Department would not issue 
rules while the House-Senate Conference on H.R. 2990 was 
considering major revisions to ERISA. In light of the fact that 
the committee never received a formal reply to its letter, we 
are troubled by the apparent breadth of specific information 
about the expected rules provided to the media by the Labor 
Department. We believe it is in the best interest of all 
parties that we, as chairmen with jurisdiction over these 
issues, receive timely responses to committee inquiries. We are 
even more troubled by * * * [the] suggestion that politics and 
timing are driving the issuance of the regulations. We hope 
that this is not the case.''
    ``Congress has authority to modify Title I of ERISA and the 
Department's regulatory authority only extends to those areas 
left to it by the Congress. We therefore strongly urge the 
Department to respect the limitations of its authority, 
particularly when Congress is considering legislative action on 
the identical issues. The Department received hundreds of 
public comments on the proposed regulations, indicating the 
proposed rules would need dramatic improvements before being 
issued in final form. We would therefore be interested in 
knowing whether the Department intends to reissue the proposed 
rule. In light of the importance, the complexity, and the 
controversial nature of the rules, we strongly urge that if * * 
* the rules are to be published prior to election day, they be 
reissued in proposed form rather than in final form.''

               b. promoting greater workplace flexibility

The Wealth Through the Workplace Act

    The Committee held a hearing on March 16, 2000 entitled 
``H.R. 3462, The Wealth Through the Workplace Act: Worker 
Ownership in Today's Economy.'' The hearing centered around the 
bill introduced by Subcommittee Chairman John A. Boehner. The 
goal of the bill is to increase the availability of stock 
options to a larger number of American workers.
    Teambuilding is replacing bureaucracy in businesses 
throughout our country and is helping to create the ``New 
Economy.'' New Economy companies are not just high-tech firms. 
They are companies that understand the value of their workforce 
as a team and organize themselves around team dynamics. A 
critical part of teambuilding is getting everyone motivated by 
common interests. Stock options are part of most compensation 
packages in the high-tech sector and increasing numbers of more 
established companies also understand the power of stock 
options and make them widely available to their employees.
    H.R. 3462, the ``Wealth Through the Workplace Act of 
1999'', is intended to promote this vision of broad-based 
employee ownership by creating a new kind of stock option. This 
would not replace existing legal treatment of stock option 
plans, but would offer a new vehicle. This new vehicle would 
provide the following: (1) deductibility to the employer, as 
with today's non-qualified plans; (2) no taxation to the 
employee until the employee actually sells the shares. (Under 
current law, employees have to pay tax when they exercise the 
options, which force many to sell the shares immediately upon 
exercise. This means many employees have to give up long-term 
appreciation in the stock. It also means that for many, the 
effectiveness of the option as a team-building incentive 
expires as soon as the option is exercised.); (3) a limited 
number of employee protections designed to make sure that the 
stock for which the options are granted can be easily traded, 
that employees have information they need to make the decision 
to buy or not, and that employees' existing cash compensation 
isn't affected by these new options; and finally, (4) a safe 
harbor. If the conditions are met, ERISA is satisfied and the 
stock option plan qualifies for favorable tax treatment. If 
not, it does not qualify for the favorable tax treatment that 
this bill specifically grants. There are no punitive 
provisions.
    On May 23, 2000, H.R. 3462, the ``Wealth Through the 
Workplace Act of 1999'' was ordered favorably reported, by 
voice vote, from the Subcommittee.
    In recognition of Subcommittee Chairman Boehner's strong 
support to increasing the availability of stock options for 
American workers, Ways and Means Subcommittee Chairman Amo 
Houghton invited Mr. Boehner to participate in a subcommittee 
hearing on the subject of expanding the availability of stock 
options.

     c. promoting economic growth and strengthening employee rights

The FAIR Act--attorney's fee legislation

    On May 10, 1999, the Employer-Employee Relations 
Subcommittee built upon three hearings held during the 105th 
Congress by holding a field hearing in Indianapolis, Indiana, 
jointly with the Senate Labor Committee's Subcommittee on 
Employment, Safety and Training. The hearing addressed, among 
other issues, the fact that small employers are at a great 
disadvantage against heavy-handed federal agencies with vast 
resources. If the NLRB or OSHA brings a losing case against a 
``little guy,'' then the agency should pay the attorney's fees 
and expenses the company had to spend to defend itself. (See 
Full Committee Activities for additional action.)

Clinton administration's proposed ``blacklisting'' regulations

    The Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee held a 
hearing (July 14, 1998) on the ``blacklisting'' regulations, 
sending a clear message to the administration that the 
proposals are not only unnecessary, but represent a political 
solution in search of a problem. The O&I Subcommittee's hearing 
provided a strong basis during the 106th Congress for arguing 
against the proposals--they 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. 
Current law also already contains extensive debarment 
procedures for ``bad actors.'' (See Full Committee Activities 
for additional action.)

The Truth in Employment Act--the ``salting'' issue

    The Education and the Workforce Committee strongly believes 
that employers should be entitled to some measure of confidence 
that job applicants are motivated by a desire to work for that 
employer--not to promote the interests of another organization 
bent on putting that company out of business. During the 106th 
Congress, the committee passed legislation that would help 
protect companies from unions' ``salting'' activities.
    ``Salting'' is the use of union agents or members to harass 
non-union employers. An employer can refuse to hire a ``salt,'' 
but runs the risk of having an unfair labor practice charge 
filed by a union, seeking reinstatement and back pay. If hired, 
a ``salt'' often remains on the union's payroll, filing charges 
against the company with government agencies, such as the NLRB 
and OSHA. ``Salting'' disrupts the workplace and causes 
productivity and quality to decline. It is often used as an 
outright tactic of economic destruction.
    ``Salts'' enter a non-union facility to harass or disrupt 
company operations, apply economic pressure, increase operating 
and legal costs, and ultimately put the company out of 
business. The object of the union agents is accomplished 
through filing, among other charges, unfair labor practice 
charges with the National Labor Relations Board. As the six 
hearings the Committee has held on this issue in the past three 
Congresses have shown, ``salting'' is not merely an organizing 
tool, but has become an instrument of economic destruction 
aimed at non-union companies that often has nothing to do with 
organizing.
    Rep. Boehner introduced H.R. 1441, the ``Truth in 
Employment Act,'' on April 15, 1999. This legislation is the 
same as Title I of H.R. 3246, which passed the House in the 
105th Congress. The Act simply says to employers that they will 
not violate the National Labor Relations Act if they do not 
hire someone who is not a ``bona fide'' applicant. The 
legislation protects the employer by making it clear that they 
are not required to hire an applicant whose primary purpose is 
not to work for the employer, and therefore is not a ``bona 
fide'' employee applicant. At the same time, the Act recognizes 
the legitimate role for organized labor, and would not 
interfere with legitimate union activities. Employees would 
continue to enjoy their right to organize or engage in other 
concerted activities protected under the National Labor 
Relations Act.
    A full committee markup of H.R. 1441 was held on July 29, 
1999. The bill was ordered favorably reported by a vote of 21-
18. A joint House/Senate field hearing was held on May 10, 1999 
in Indianapolis, Indiana. This was the committee's sixth 
hearing on the ``salting'' issue in the past three Congresses.

Union democracy--strengthening rights of rank-and-file union members

    During the 106th Congress, the Employer-Employee Relations 
Subcommittee continued a series of hearings, initiated in the 
105th Congress, examining problems union members have in 
retaining a full, equal, and democratic voice in their union 
affairs. The goal of this series 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 subcommittee is aware of significant unrest among the rank-
and-file and an erosion of the principles of union democracy.
    More than forty years have passed since the enactment of 
the LMRDA. The Act 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 internal operations of unions, reported the 
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 
concerning the use of union funds.
    The Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations held three 
hearings on union democracy during the 106th Congress (March 
17, April 15, and July 21, 1999). The March 17, 1999 hearing 
featured a panel of three witnesses who discussed the basis for 
union democracy and recommended changes to the LMRDA. In 
addition, the panel discussed the need for the Act to cover 
public unions. The specific example discussed, underscoring the 
need to include publicunions under LMRDA, was the New York City 
scandal, involving District Council 37 of the American Federation of 
State, County, and Municipal Employees.
    The April 15, 1999 hearing focused on the Department of 
Labor and its enforcement of an 18-year-old federal court 
decision, ordering elections in a transient division of the 
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, 
Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers. (See Donovan v. National 
Transient Division, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, 
Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, et al. 
(10th Cir. CA, Civil Action No. 79-2074). As a result of the 
subcommittee's oversight, the Department of Labor referred the 
matter to the Department of Justice and the United States 
Attorney for further proceedings. The rank-and-file 
boilermakers hailed the subcommittee's efforts in seeking to 
achieve union democracy and enforce the court-ordered autonomy 
that was absent for 18 years, even after the original federal 
court order.
    The July 21, 1999 hearing examined the results of a 1995 
Consent Decree involving the Hotel Employees and Restaurant 
Employees International Union. The Consent Decree was imposed 
on the union in an effort to rid the union of the influence of 
organized crime and to restore union democracy. The 
subcommittee heard testimony from the Departments of Justice 
and Labor, as well as the court-appointed monitor, the 
international president, and four rank-and-file members of the 
union.
    The subcommittee has also monitored the increasing 
prevalence of litigation on issues of union democracy. 
Frustrated with what they consider to be inadequate and/or 
inefficient enforcement of Landrum-Griffin by the Department of 
Labor's Office of Labor Management Standards (OLMS)--the office 
primarily responsible for monitoring union democracy issues--
rank-and-file union members have increasingly turned to the 
courts for relief. These efforts have yielded mixed results.
    One significant case addressed the issue of notification of 
union member rights. Current law requires unions to ``inform 
its members concerning the provisions of'' the Act (29 U.S.C. 
Sec. 415). Some unions, however, have argued that a one-time 
notification of rights under the LMRDA given decades ago 
satisfies the current law requirement. This issue was the 
subject of a recent Fourth Circuit case. (See Thomas v. Grand 
Lodge of Int'l Ass'n of Machinists, 201 F.3d 517, Fourth 
Circuit, 2000)). In Thomas, union members sued the 
International Association of Machinists to require the union to 
distribute to each member a summary of their rights under 
Landrum-Griffin. The union claimed that they had fulfilled the 
notification requirements in 1959 when they distributed the 
text of the recently-passed law. The district court agreed with 
the union leadership, but the Fourth Circuit overturned that 
decision on appeal.
    The Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations also held 
four hearings on union democracy during the 105th Congress (May 
4, June 25, August 4, and September 24, 1998).
            The DRUM Act
    On July 26, 2000, Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee 
Chairman John Boehner introduced H.R. 4963, the Democratic 
Rights for Union Members (DRUM) Act of 2000. The DRUM Act 
addresses problems highlighted during subcommittee hearings and 
in recent court decisions. The Act amends the LMRDA to improve 
the law in three major areas: information for union members, 
trusteeships, and elections. Specifically, the DRUM Act 
provides enhanced notification to union members of their rights 
under the LMRDA; increased authority for the Department of 
Labor to enforce the notification rights of union members; a 
requirement that governing bodies hold a hearing before 
imposing a trusteeship on a subordinate body; authorization for 
bona fide candidates for elected union office to receive a list 
of eligible voters; a requirement for direct election of 
certain authority-wielding officers of intermediate union 
bodies; a clarification of the term ``reasonable 
qualifications'' to allow more union members to participate in 
the election process; and an improved standard governing 
circumstances in which elections must be re-run following fraud 
or abuse.

   d. examining the collective bargaining process and its enforcement

Review of the National Labor Relations Board

    The Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee held a hearing 
on September 19, 2000, looking at the implications of the 
National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) recent rash of 
decisions overturning established law, including, among others, 
those involving temporary workers, the right to witnesses in 
private meetings between non-unionized employers and their 
employees, and the status of student interns and residents 
under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The subcommittee 
heard from labor law experts, including former Board Member 
Charles Cohen, and the Board's general counsel, Leonard Page, 
who was questioned regarding his initiative to impose new 
remedies against employers, thereby transforming the NLRA from 
a remedial statute to a punitive one.
    The hearing established that, in overturning many years of 
established labor law, the Clinton administration bent over 
backwards to expand the reach of the NLRA at a time when it 
should have been using its taxpayer funds to speed up case 
adjudication. Congress gave the Board a significant budget 
increase in FY 2000--a $22 million boost to $206.5 million from 
$184.5 million.
    The Board also entered questionable territory in reversing 
25 years of precedent concerning NLRB jurisdiction over Indian 
Tribes and Tribal-owned economic enterprises located on 
reservations Last fall, the Board general counsel announced the 
Board would change its longstanding position, and is currently 
asserting jurisdiction in litigation involving a Native 
American gaming casino in California. Also, numerous NLRB 
stakeholders expressed concern over lengthy delays in the 
agency's processing of cases for appellate review.
    The Oversight & Investigations Subcommittee probed the 
agency's rationale behind changing its jurisdictional standards 
regarding Indian Tribes and their economic enterprises located 
on reservations. Correspondence from the Board general counsel 
indicated a pro-union bias. On the issue of delay in processing 
appeals, the O&I Subcommittee opened an investigation and met 
with the Board's Inspector General's office. This prompted the 
Board to reexamine its procedures as part of its management 
plan submissions under the Government Performance and Results 
Act. In addition, the Inspector General opened a review of 
thebacklogged cases and the timeliness of action within the NLRB's 
division of enforcement litigation.
    The committee has maintained during the past six years that 
Congress intended the NLRB to be a neutral arbiter of labor-
management disputes. The Board's current disregard for well-
established labor law shows an agency over-reaching to expand 
its jurisdiction at a time when it should be using budget 
increases to address a backlog of cases.
    The Board's disregard for established labor law erodes the 
measure of stability, certainty and predictability necessary 
for effective labor-management relations. The agency's 
decisions are increasingly at odds with the intent and 
structure of the National Labor Relations Act. Furthermore, 
changes to the remedial scheme of the NLRA are properly within 
the legislative realm of Congress, and should not be attempted 
through the Board's office of general counsel.
    By holding oversight hearings during the 106th Congress, 
the committee sought to send the Board a message that it needs 
to live up to its commitment to reduce case backlog, rather 
than use its larger budget to expand its jurisdiction beyond 
the scope of the NLRA. On the issue of Indian tribes, the NLRB 
general counsel's overreaching in asserting jurisdiction over 
tribes and their economic enterprises on reservations 
disregards longstanding Indian sovereignty and threatens to 
open the floodgates to union activity on sovereign Indian land.

Collective bargaining for public safety officers

    The Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations held a 
hearing on May 9, 2000, to discuss the issue of collective 
bargaining rights for public safety employees. Specifically, 
the hearing focused on H.R. 1093, the ``Public Safety Employer-
Employee Cooperation Act,'' introduced on March 11, 1999, by 
Representative Dale Kildee (D-MI), a minority member of the 
subcommittee.
    H.R. 1093 would upset the longstanding tradition of the 
federal government leaving to the individual states the 
decision of whether, and in what manner, to regulate labor-
management relations among state and local entities and their 
employees. If certain interest groups want their members to 
have the right to collectively bargain with state and local 
entities, then they should engage in trying to change state 
laws, rather than attempt to have Congress preempt states' 
rights, and the many varied state laws already on the books 
governing this issue.
    At the subcommittee's May 9 hearing, representatives of the 
International Association of Fire Fighters and the Fraternal 
Order of Police testified in support of the legislation. The 
mayor of Grand Junction, Colorado, and a practicing attorney 
and expert in state labor relations testified in opposition. An 
analyst from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) also 
testified. Among other issues, the hearing focused on the 
constitutionality of the legislation, federal usurpation of 
local and state authority, public safety ramifications, union 
democracy protections, and impacts on volunteer fire 
departments.
    The subcommittee heard testimony expressing concern about 
the constitutionality of the proposed legislation. A series of 
Supreme Court decisions shows Congress' lack of authority to 
abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity of states under the 
Commerce Clause. Given this precedent, it is probable the 
Supreme Court would find that enactment of H.R. 1093 would 
overstep Congress' constitutional authority. If in fact the 
Commerce Clause does not provide sufficient authority for 
enactment of H.R. 1093, some have suggested that Congress' 
authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment is 
sufficient justification. That assertion also appears to be 
suspect in light of Supreme Court precedent. Specifically, in 
1997, in City of Boerne v. Flores (521 U.S. 507), the Supreme 
Court held that Congress did not have the authority under the 
Fourteenth Amendment to enact the Religious Freedom Restoration 
Act because action pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment is 
limited by ``congruence'' and ``proportionality'' between the 
proposal and the injury being addressed. Clearly, H.R. 1093 
does not seek to address a constitutional violation and 
therefore would fail the Boerne test.
    Furthermore, the legislation represents an inappropriate 
exercise of power on the part of the federal government. The 
legislation would significantly impact an area which has 
traditionally been under the purview of state and local 
lawmakers clearly because state and local governments are in 
the best position to determine the best method for working with 
their employees. Additionally, the authority of the Federal 
Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), as embodied by the proposed 
legislation, is troubling because of a noticeable lack of 
redress for employers who disagree with FLRA determinations.
    R. Theodore Clark, Jr., a partner at the Seyfarth, Shaw law 
firm in Chicago, raised an interesting parallel, pointing out 
that the standard by which the FLRA will judge state collective 
bargaining legislation is similar to a provision of the 
National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) that gives the National 
Labor Relations Board (NLRB) the authority to cede jurisdiction 
to state agencies as long as the state's legislation is not 
``inconsistent'' with the Act. Given the understandable 
tendency of federal agencies to refuse to reduce their own 
power, providing the FLRA with new authority without proper 
checks and balances is inappropriate.
    Another major area of concern is the issue of democratic 
rights for union members in public sector unions. During the 
past three years, under two different chairmen, the 
Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations has performed an 
extensive review of the Landrum-Griffin Act. While the law has 
generally strengthened the labor movement, some shortcomings 
have come to the subcommittee's attention. Employees of state 
and local governments are not generally covered by Landrum-
Griffin. As a result, their unions sometimes lack true 
democratic processes. This in turn can lead to corruption and 
abuse of power within the organization. Given that H.R. 1093 
steps into the relationship between non-federal, public sector 
employers and their employees to require recognition, and while 
it is inappropriate for Congress to dictate to the states how 
they should deal with their own workers, it clearly would be 
imprudent to mandate bargaining rights without also mandating 
the basic rights guaranteed by the federal law protecting 
internal union democracy.
    Finally, H.R. 1093 could have a devastating impact on the 
28,000 volunteer fire departments across the country, because 
the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) prohibits 
their members from becoming volunteer firefighters. The 
National Volunteer Fire Council, which represents the volunteer 
fire fighters, wrote to Subcommittee Chairman Boehner on 
December 16, 1999 encouraging him to oppose enactment of H.R. 
1093 because they fear it would exacerbate the current decline 
in volunteerism, thus further reducing the ability of volunteer 
departments to meet increasing demands.
    Significantly, Mr. Clark's testimony against the 
legislation, given on behalf of the National Public Employer 
Labor Relations Association, was endorsed and supported by the 
International Personnel Management Association, the United 
States Conference of Mayors, the National Association of 
Counties, and the National League of Cities.

                 II. Hearings Held by the Subcommittee


106th Congress, First Session

    February 24, 1999--Hearing on ERISA: A Quarter Century of 
Providing Workers Health Insurance (106-5).
    March 17, 1999--Hearing on Impediments to Union Democracy: 
Public and Private Sector Workers Under the Labor Management 
Reporting and Disclosure Act (106-11).
    March 25, 1999--Hearing on Expanding Affordable Health Care 
Coverage: Benefits and Consequences of Association Health Plans 
(106-14).
    April 15, 1999--Hearing on Impediments to Democracy: 
Department of Labor Enforcement of Rank-and-File Rights and the 
Boilermakers Union (106-22).
    April 20, 1999--Hearing on Employer Health Plan 
Accountability: Do Plan Participants Have Adequate Protections? 
(106-24).
    May 6, 1999--Hearing on Impact of External Review on Health 
Care Quality (106-33).
    May 10, 1999--Joint Field Hearing on The Practice of 
`Salting' and it's Impact on Small Business, Indianapolis, IN 
(106-76).
    June 11, 1999--Hearing on the Relationship Between Health 
Care Costs and America's Uninsured (106-47).
    June 6, 1999--Hearing on H.R. 1102, The Comprehensive 
Retirement Security and Pension Reform Act of 1999 (106-51).
    July 21, 1999--Hearing on Union Democracy, Part VII: 
Government Supervision of the Hotel Employees and Restaurant 
Employees International Union (106-63).

106th Congress, Second Session

    February 15, 2000--Hearing on ``The Evolving Pension and 
Investment World After 25 Years of ERISA'' (106-87).
    March 9, 2000--Hearing on A More Secure Retirement for 
Workers: Proposals for ERISA Reform (106-95).
    March 10, 2000--Hearing on A More Secure Retirement for 
Workers: Proposal for ERISA Reform (106-95).
    March 16, 2000--Hearing on ``The Wealth Through The 
Workplace Act: Worker Ownership In Today's Economy'' (106-96).
    April 4, 2000--Hearing on ``Modernizing ERISA To Promote 
Retirement Security'' (106-98).
    May 9, 2000--Hearing on H.R. 1093, The Public Safety 
Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 1999 (106-106).
    September 14, 2000 How To Improve Pension Coverage for 
American Workers (106-119).
    September 19, 2000--Hearing on The National Labor Relations 
Board: Recent Trends and Their Implications (106-123).

                 III. Markups Held by the Subcommittee


106th Congress, First Session

    June 16, 1999--H.R. 2041, ``Patient Right to Obstetric and 
Gynecological Care Act of 1999'' was ordered favorably reported 
amended by a roll call vote of 10-7.
    H.R. 2042, ``Health Care Access, Affordability, and Quality 
Advisory Commission Act of 1999'' was ordered favorably 
reported by a roll call vote of 10-9.
    H.R. 2043, ``Patient Right to Unrestricted Medical Advice 
Act of 1999'' was ordered favorably reported amended by a roll 
call vote of 10-7.
    H.R. 2044, ``Patient Right to Pediatric Care Act of 1999'' 
was ordered favorably reported by voice vote.
    H.R. 2045, ``Patient Right to Emergency Medical Care Act of 
1999'' was ordered favorably reported by a roll call vote of 9-
6.
    H.R. 2046, ``Patient Access to Information Act of 1999'' 
was ordered favorably reported amended by a roll call vote of 
9-5.
    H.R. 2047, ``Small Business Access and Choice for 
Entrepreneurs Act of 1999'' was ordered favorably reported by 
voice vote.
    H.R. 2089, ``Group Health Plan Review Standards Act of 
1999'' was ordered favorably reported amended by a roll call 
vote of 11-7.

106th Congress, Second Session

    May 23, 2000--H.R. 3462, ``Wealth Through the Workplace Act 
of 1999'' was ordered favorably reported by voice vote.
    July 19, 2000--H.R. 4747, ``Retirement Security Advice Act 
of 2000'' was ordered favorably reported amended by voice vote.

                      IV. Subcommittee Statistics

Total Number of Bills and Resolutions Referred to Subcommittee....   138
Total Number of Hearings..........................................    18
    Field.........................................................     1
    Joint with Other Committees...................................     1
Total Number of Subcommittee Markup Sessions......................     3
Total Number of Bills Reported From Subcommittee..................    10

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS


                        I. Summary of Activities


    A. reforming labor standards to meet the challenges of today's 
                               workplace

    During the 106th 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 (FLSA). The purpose of the hearings was to review the Act, 
along with its many underlying regulations, to determine which 
provisions should be updated to reflect the realities of the 
modern workforce and to clarify areas where the law reflects 
uncertainty.

Stock options--overtime

    On March 2, 2000, the subcommittee convened to hear 
testimony on the treatment of stock option programs and other 
so-called ``broad-based stock option plans'' under the Fair 
Labor Standards Act. The impetus behind the hearing was a 
Department of Labor Wage and Hour opinion letter, dated 
February 12, 1999, which had only recently become widely 
publicized. The letter addressed a request by an employer to 
clarify the application of the overtime provisions under the 
Fair Labor Standards Act to the profits from the exercise of 
stock options to employees who are non-exempt from overtime. In 
the letter, the Department of Labor concluded that profits from 
the exercise of stock options must be included in the base pay 
rates of hourly employees for the purposes of calculating 
overtime pay rates.
    In the department's opinion, the profits from stock options 
were essentially a form of compensation that must be added to 
an employee's base pay rate in order to determine the 
employee's time-and-a-half wage for overtime purposes. The 
department also said that the profits must be added to the 
employee's base pay for the time in which it was earned, ending 
with the workweek that the employee exercised the options and 
going back to the date of the employee's right to purchase the 
shares.
    In testimony before the subcommittee, witnesses discussed 
how stock ownership programs are now available to more and more 
employees. Once a symbol of executive status, there has been a 
dramatic increase in the past several years in the number of 
companies offering broad-based employee ownership plans to 
rank-and-file employees. Stock option programs can be 
configured in a variety of ways and are referred to by 
different names, but all of the programs share similar 
objectives: to reward employees, provide ownership in the 
company, and to attract and retain a motivated workforce.
    The witnesses also testified about how the Department of 
Labor's policy would undermine the expansion of stock option 
programs and other broad-based stock option plans for non-
exempt employees. In addition, the witnesses expressed concern 
that the impact of the letter would be to force employers to 
limit or abandon existing programs and prevent non-exempt 
employees from participating in these types of programs. While 
the opinion letter constituted the department's interpretation 
of the law based on the facts and circumstances of one specific 
case, it became clear that the practical effect of the letter 
was to ``red flag'' all other similar programs and cause 
widespread confusion about overtime liability among employers 
who provide stock options for their hourly or ``non-exempt'' 
employees.
    Witnesses urged Congress to act quickly and amend the Fair 
Labor Standards Act to clarify that the profits from the 
exercise of stock options are not part of the employee's 
regular rate of pay and therefore, need not be included in the 
calculation of overtime pay. Likewise, the Department of Labor 
testified in favor of a legislative solution.
    Following the subcommittee hearing, Chairman Ballenger (R-
NC) and other members of the committee worked with interested 
parties in the Senate and with the Department of Labor to craft 
bipartisan legislation that would exempt stock option profits 
from the calculation of overtime. Chairman Ballenger and 
Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) subsequently introduced ``The 
Worker Economic Opportunity Act,'' H.R. 4109 and S. 2323 
respectively, in both Houses of Congress. The legislation 
amends the Fair Labor Standards Act to ensure that federal law 
does not discourage the use of stock option programs or deny 
employees the opportunity to participate in the success of 
their company. The legislation specifies that any value or 
income derived from a stock option, stock appreciation right or 
employee stock purchase plan will not have to be factored into 
the calculation of employees' overtime pay.
    S. 2323 was considered and passed by the Senate without 
amendment by a roll call vote of 95-0 on April 12, 2000. The 
House then considered and passed the Senate bill without 
amendment, under suspension of the rules on May 3, 2000 by a 
roll call vote of 421-0. The bill, which became Public Law 106-
202 on May 18, 2000, eliminates any confusion about the law's 
treatment of stock option plans by exempting the overwhelming 
majority of such plans from the overtime requirements of the 
Fair Labor Standards Act. In order to fall outside of the scope 
of the Act, the plans must meet certain requirements for 
exclusion: a minimum 6-month vesting period between the grant 
of the option and its exercise by the employee; any discounts 
on stock option or stock appreciation rights may not exceed 15 
percent of fair market value at the time of the grant; the 
voluntary exercise of any grant or right by the employee; and 
disclosure of the terms of the plan to the employees. Finally, 
Public Law 106-202 also provides a ``safe harbor'' for those 
plans that were currently in place, thereby eliminating 
employers' concern about overtime liability for past or current 
plans.

Addressing the employment needs of Amish youth

    At the beginning of the 106th Congress, Representative 
Joseph R. Pitts (R-PA), along with 13 cosponsors, introduced 
H.R. 221, to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to permit 
certain individuals who are between the ages of 14 and 18 to be 
employed in sawmills or woodworking shops 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.
    Young people between the ages of 14 and 18 would be 
permitted 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 bill requires 
that the young person 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.
    H.R. 221 was introduced in response to issues that were 
raised during a subcommittee hearing in the previous Congress. 
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 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 that relate to 
the employment of persons under the age of 18 in agriculture 
are less restrictive than those which would otherwise apply, 
particularly for work on family farms. 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 and 
pay taxes and medical bills have forced more and more Amish 
families into other non-agricultural occupations such as 
woodworking and carpentry.
    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 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 to accommodate the needs of the Amish, hence the need 
for legislation. While the House considered and passed a 
bipartisan bill during the last Congress (H.R. 4257--sponsored 
by Representative Joseph R. Pitts), the Senate failed to act on 
the bill prior to the end of the Congress.
    H.R. 221 was considered by the full committee on February 
10, 1999, and was favorably reported without amendment. The 
bill was considered and passed by the House with a substitute 
amendment, by voice vote, under suspension of the rules on 
March 2, 1999. The substitute amendment made one technical 
change to the bill for the purpose of renumbering a paragraph. 
The bill was forwarded to the Senate, which did not act on the 
legislation prior to the close of the 106th Congress.

Application of the Fair Labor Standards Act to ``Inside Sales'' 
        personnel

    On March 25, 1999, Representatives John A. Boehner (R-OH) 
and Robert E. Andrews (D-NJ) introduced a bipartisan bill, H.R. 
1302, ``The Sales Incentive Compensation Act.'' The bill was 
referred to the subcommittee. H.R. 1302 was identical to 
legislation (H.R. 2888) considered by the subcommittee, and 
passed by the full committee and the House during the last 
Congress. The purpose of the bill was 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 record-keeping 
requirements.
    This is an issue that received considerable attention 
during the previous Congress. At a hearing to review the 
treatment of inside sales employees under the Fair Labor 
Standards Act, 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 their jobs.
    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 establishment, 
then the individual no longer qualifies for the exemption from 
minimum wage and overtime.
    The subcommittee heard testimony from several employees who 
wanted relief from the restrictions and inflexibility 
associated with the Fair Labor Standards Act. In today's highly 
competitive global marketplace, many employees earn a living by 
selling goods and services to customers across the continent or 
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, current law 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'sincome because he or she is 
prevented from working more hours to generate additional sales and 
increase earnings.
    The exemption made by H.R. 1302 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. 1302 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. 1302 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 
employee's base compensation which is based on each sale 
attributable to the employee.
    On March 9, 2000, the House passed H.R. 3846, introduced by 
Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), which contained a provision identical 
to H.R. 1302. Upon passage, the measure was combined with H.R. 
3081, introduced by Rep. Rick Lazio (R-NY) and forwarded to the 
Senate, which did not act on the bill prior to the end of the 
Congress.

Rewarding Performance in Compensation Act

    On April 13, 1999, Chairman Ballenger introduced H.R. 1381, 
``The Rewarding Performance in Compensation Act.'' The bill 
would have amended the Fair Labor Standards Act to remove 
barriers within the law that 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. Executive, 
administrative, or professional employees who are exempt from 
minimum wage and overtime can receive bonuses without impacting 
their pay rates. The requirements under the Fair Labor 
Standards Act virtually ensure that employers will exclude 
hourly workers from bonus and gainsharing programs. These types 
of workers should have the same opportunity as salaried workers 
to participate in financial incentive programs. H.R. 1381 
sought to address that very issue, by encouraging wider use of 
gainsharing programs.
    On the same day that Chairman Ballenger introduced H.R. 
1381, the subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. Witnesses 
testified that the Fair Labor Standards Act often discourages 
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. Rather than go 
through this process, according to the witnesses, many 
employers simply do not make their hourly employees eligible 
for performance bonuses.
    On May 19, 1999, the subcommittee ordered H.R. 1381 
favorably reported, without amendment, by voice vote. The bill 
was considered at full committee on May 19, 1999 and was 
ordered reported, with amendment, by a vote of 26-22.
    The Senate approved the language of S. 1878, introduced by 
Sen. Hutchinson, the companion bill to H.R. 1381, as an 
amendment to S. 625, introduced by Sen. Grassley, the 
Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999. The Senate incorporated this 
measure into H.R. 833, introduced by Rep. George Gekas (R-PA) 
as an amendment on February 2, 2000. There was no further 
action taken on the issue by the House prior to adjournment.

Clarifying the overtime exemption for fire fighters

    On May 5, 1999, Rep. Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr. introduced a 
bill, H.R. 1693, to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to 
clarify the overtime exemption for fire fighters. The bill had 
bipartisan support in the House and was supported by both labor 
and management. The subcommittee first became aware of the 
issue at a hearing during the 104th Congress.
    H.R. 1693 was a simple and non-controversial bill to 
clarify section 7(k) of the Fair Labor Standards Act and 
restore the original intent of the overtime provisions for 
employees engaged in fire protection activities. Section 7(k) 
outlines a limited overtime exemption for employees of public 
agencies who are engaged in fire protection activities. In 
interpreting the law, the Department of Labor's regulations 
specified that rescue and ambulance service personnel, 
otherwise known as emergency medical services (EMS) personnel 
may, depending on their duties, be considered to be engaged in 
fire protection and qualify for the 7(k) exemption if they 
formed ``an integral part of the public agency's fire 
protection activities.''
    In many state and local governments, it is customary for 
EMS personnel to work from within the fire department and 
receive similar training to fire fighters. Traditionally, these 
types of workers have fit within the fire fighters exemption. 
In recent years, however, some courts have narrowly interpreted 
the 7(k) exemption and held that EMS personnel do not fall 
under the exemption because the bulk of their time is spent 
engaged in non-fire protection activities. Thus, H.R. 1693 
sought to clarify current law by defining ``employees in fire 
protection activities.'' This would ensure that fire fighters 
who are ``cross-trained'' to provide emergency medical services 
would be covered by the 7(k) exemption. The bill would also 
eliminate the confusion that employers face in trying to 
interpret the law. Without H.R. 1693, local governments could 
be needlessly exposed to significant financial liability that 
in turn, could dramatically increase the cost of providing 
adequate fire protection services. H.R. 1693 was a narrow bill, 
but one that was important in helping state and local 
governments provide fire protection and emergency medical 
services in the most effective and efficient way. (See Full 
Committee Activities for further action.)

The Fair Labor Standards Act and volunteer fire fighters

    On February 23, 1999, the subcommittee convened to hear 
testimony on the impact of the Fair Labor Standards Act on 
volunteer fire fighters. The witnesses testified about the need 
for some clarification of the application of the law to fire 
fighters who want to volunteer their services. The witnesses 
discussed recent interpretations of the Act by the Department 
of Labor that have adversely impacted the fire rescue systems 
in many communities. In 1985, Congress enacted amendments to 
the Fair Labor Standards Act that included an exemption from 
the definition of ``employee'' for individuals who render 
services as ``volunteers'' for state and local government 
employers. An individual may volunteer for a public agency if 
the services are not the same type of services that the 
individual is employed to perform for that agency.
    The law is clear that paid fire fighters may volunteer for 
a separate and independent employer, such as a nearby county. 
However, conflict between the law and volunteer fire fighters 
often arises from the Department of Labor's determination of 
whether two agencies of the same state or local government 
constitute the same or a separate public agency. The witnesses 
testified that this frequently happens when a particular 
jurisdiction, such as a county, uses a mix of volunteers and 
paid fire fighters. Some communities have experienced drastic 
reductions in their volunteer ranks as many career, paid fire 
and rescue workers are told that they cannot volunteer their 
time with any other volunteer fire or rescue squad within that 
jurisdiction. There was no further action taken on this matter 
before the 106th Congress adjourned.

White-collar exemptions in the modern work place

    On May 3, 2000, the subcommittee held a hearing on the 
General Accounting Office's (GAO) report on ``The Fair Labor 
Standards Act: White-Collar Exemptions in the Modern Work 
Place.'' The report was prepared at the request of Chairmen 
Goodling and Ballenger and was completed by GAO in the fall of 
1999. The subcommittee reviewed GAO's findings and heard 
testimony from the Department of Labor, which has the 
responsibility for revising and updating the white-collar 
regulations. In addition, testimony was heard from employer and 
employee representatives, who are directly impacted by the 
Department of Labor's regulations.
    The subcommittee has reviewed this issue several times over 
the course of the last three Congresses. This is undoubtedly 
the most difficult, but also the most important issue involving 
the Fair Labor Standards Act. The distinctions between 
employees who are exempt from overtime requirements because 
they are managerial or administrative employees, and those who 
are not exempt and must be paid at least minimum wage for each 
hour worked and overtime for hours worked over 40, are 
essentially those that were established in 1938 when the Act 
was passed, overlaid with layers of regulations, 
interpretations and court decisions. It has been widely 
acknowledged that the current tests (the ``duties'' and 
``salary basis'' tests) are outdated, unpredictable and 
complex.
    GAO recommended that the Secretary of Labor comprehensively 
review and revise the white-collar exemptions to better meet 
the needs of both employers and employees. The key areas for 
review, according to GAO, are (1) the salary levels used to 
trigger the regulatory tests, and (2) the categories of 
employees covered by the exemptions. GAO also found that 
because the Department of Labor has not updated the regulatory 
tests in decades, many of the tests are virtually meaningless 
and there are mounting complaints by employers about ambiguity 
in the requirements. While the Department attempted during the 
1980's to revise the tests, it has not acted because of the 
difficulty in getting consensus on the changes. Furthermore, 
recent narrow changes to correct the regulatory tests for 
specific groups of workers have done little to alleviate the 
general problems.
    GAO's report focused on the following issues: (1) the 
number of employees covered by the exemptions and how the 
demographics and characteristics of the employees have changed 
in recent years; (2) how the statutory and regulatory 
requirements have changed since the enactment of the Fair Labor 
Standards Act; (3) the major concerns of employers and 
employees regarding the white-collar exemptions; and (4) 
problems associated with resolving the concerns of employers 
and employees.

Boxing reform

    In 1996, the Workforce Protections Subcommittee held a 
hearing on the Professional Boxing Safety Act. The hearing 
focused on issues of fraud, health, and safety in the sport of 
boxing. The Professional Boxing Safety Act created minimum 
national standards for the health and safety of professional 
boxers. The Act also improved the ability of state boxing 
commissions to properly oversee professional boxing matches.
    On June 5, 1999, H.R. 1832, the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform 
Act was referred to the Workforce Protections Subcommittee. The 
Act requires the establishment of objective and consistent 
criteria for the ratings of professional boxers. It also 
requires disclosures of compensation received in connection 
with a boxing match by promoters, managers, sanctioning bodies, 
and judges and referees. Finally, it provides for tough new 
penalties for criminals who continue to try to manipulate and 
undermine the sport through coercion and bribes.
    Nineteen bipartisan State attorneys general and numerous 
State boxing commissioners from across the United States asked 
Congress for help in cleaning up the sport of boxing. These 
State agencies strongly endorsed the Muhammad Ali Act, saying 
it was necessary legislation to prevent exploitation of 
professional boxers and to curb the anticompetitive and 
fraudulent business practices in the sport. Congress is now 
giving the States and State boxing commissioners their 
requested assistance
    First, bribes are prohibited for sanctioning bodies. 
Second, conflicts of interest are prohibited for boxing 
managers and promoters. Third, boxers are protected from 
coercive contracts. Fourth, new strong disclosure requirements 
are created for promoters, sanctioning bodies, judges, and 
referees to reduce corruption. Fifth, boxing judges and 
referees are required to be approved by the State commissions. 
Sixth, unsportsmanlike conduct would be added as a new category 
of suspendable offenses. And, seventh, the State boxing 
commissions are encouraged to adopt uniform rules, regulations, 
rating criteria, and guidelines for contracts.
    The House passed the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act on 
November 8, 1999 under suspension of the rules. The Senate 
passed the Act on April 7, 2000 with amendments. On May 22, 
2000 the House agreed to the Senate amendments; and the Act was 
signed by the President and became Public Law 106-210 on May 
26, 2000.

        B. OSHA'S REGULATORY AGENDA AND LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES

    Over the past few years, the Subcommittee on Workforce 
Protections has focused on ways to push the Occupational Safety 
and Health Administration (OSHA) towards more cooperation and 
consultative approaches with the workplaces it regulates, while 
at the same time ensuring safety and health in the workplace. 
As a result of this effort, OSHA has begun to take some steps 
to move the agency in this direction, mainly because of the 
impetus of the subcommittee. However, more work needs to be 
done. The subcommittee concentrated its work in the 106th 
Congress on reviewing a number of significant OSHA initiatives, 
exploring ways to achieve a more cooperative approach with 
industry and encouraging commitments to improved safety and 
health.

OSHA overview

    The subcommittee began the 106th Congress by reviewing the 
OSHA regulatory agenda. A hearing held on March 23, 1999 
focused on three regulations which OSHA indicated it would soon 
propose. Each of these three proposed regulations would 
substantially impact nearly every company and workplace in the 
United States: an ergonomics standard, a regulation on safety 
and health programs, and extensive revisions of OSHA's injury 
and illness record-keeping requirements (recordkeeping). 
Witnesses at the hearing included representatives from OSHA, 
the business community, and labor unions. The witnesses raised 
questions about OSHA's regulations and concerns with the 
potential cost of the regulations, the need for a sound 
scientific basis before OSHA proposes a standard, and the 
impact of the regulations on small businesses. The ergonomics 
standard and the recordkeeping revisions were the subjects of 
further attention and review by the subcommittee and the House 
later in the Congress.
    A second hearing held on April 21, 1999 reviewed pending 
OSHA legislation. The subcommittee heard testimony on four 
bills: H.R. 987, the ``Workplace Preservation Act,'' introduced 
by Representative Roy Blunt; H.R. 1438, the ``Safety and Health 
Audit Promotion Act,'' and H.R. 1439, the ``Safety and Health 
Audit Promotion and Whistleblower Improvement Act'' both 
introduced by Representative Cass Ballenger; and H.R. 1459, the 
``Models of Safety and Health Excellence Act'' introduced by 
Representative Tom Petri (R-WI). Witnesses at the hearing 
included Members of Congress, doctors, employers, and a labor 
union. The hearing focused on the need for these important 
changes to the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
    On May 13, 1999 the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections 
held a hearing on H.R. 1434, the ``Safety Meetings Protection 
Act'' introduced by Representative Cass Ballenger. Under the 
legislation, safety committees and similar employee involvement 
programs in safety and health programs in non-union workplaces 
would be allowed to evaluate and give recommendations to the 
employer. The issue is of particular importance because while 
there is general consensus that employee safety committees are 
very useful in promoting employee safety and health, it is 
difficult for employers to conform to the requirements of the 
National Labor Relations Act. Witnesses included business 
owners, attorneys, and the solicitor for the Department of 
Labor. The hearing highlighted the importance of clarifying the 
law to ensure better working conditions for American employees.

Ergonomics

    One area of particular concern to the Workforce Protections 
Subcommittee was the plan by the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration to propose and finalize a workplace 
``ergonomics'' standard before a comprehensive study of the 
issue by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was complete. 
The study was requested and funded by Congress in October 1998 
in P.L. 105-277. The purpose of the study is to inform 
Congress, the Department of Labor, and employers and employees 
about the state of scientific information, so that a better 
decision can be made about whether a broad regulation is an 
appropriate and effective response to so-called ergonomics-
related injuries. The NAS is expected to complete its study 
early in 2001, but OSHA has made issuing a final ergonomics 
standard by the end of 2000 its top priority.
    The Workforce Protections Subcommittee held a hearing on 
March 23, 1999, and focused on oversight of the Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration, specifically on OSHA's 
regulatory agenda, including a proposed ergonomics standard. 
Testifying at the hearing were: Mr. Charles N. Jeffress, 
Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. 
Department of Labor, Washington, D.C.; Mr. Stuart McMichael, 
President, Custom Print, Inc., Arlington, Virginia, 
representing the Printing Industries of America, the National 
Federation of Independent Business, and the Alliance for 
Workplace Safety; Mr. David G. Sarvadi, Attorney-at-Law, Keller 
and Heckman LLP, Washington, D.C., representing the National 
Coalition on Ergonomics; Mr. James Elmer, James W. Elmer 
Construction Company, Spokane, Washington; and Mr. Bill 
Borwegen, Occupational Health and Safety Director, Service 
Employees International Union, Washington, D.C.
    Despite congressional interest in seeing the results of the 
NAS study prior to OSHA issuing a regulation, OSHA pushed ahead 
with its plan. Consequently, Congressman Roy Blunt of Missouri 
introduced H.R. 987, the ``Workplace Preservation Act,'' on 
March 3, 1999, and the bill was subsequently referred to the 
Workforce Protections Subcommittee. H.R. 987 prohibits OSHA 
from promulgating an ergonomics standard until the NAS 
completes its study and reports the results to Congress. The 
bill prohibits OSHA from promulgating either a proposed 
ergonomic standard under section 6(b)(2) of the OSH Act or a 
final standard under section 6(b)(4) of the Act.
    On April 21, 1999, the Subcommittee on Workforce 
Protections held a hearing on legislation to amend the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act. Among the bills considered 
was H.R. 987, the ``Workplace Preservation Act.'' The witnesses 
testifying on H.R. 987 included the Honorable Roy Blunt, Member 
of Congress, 7th District of Missouri; the Honorable Nancy 
Pelosi, Member of Congress, 8th District of California; Dr. 
Stanley J. Bigos, Professor of Orthopedics with the Bone and 
Joint Center at the University of Washington Medical Center, 
Seattle, Washington; and Dr. Michael Vender, Hand Surgeon, Hand 
Surgery Associates, Arlington Heights, Illinois.
    On May 19, 1999, the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections 
approved H.R. 987 and ordered it favorably reported to the Full 
Committee by voice vote. On June 23, 1999, the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce approved the bill by a roll call 
vote of 23-18 and ordered the bill favorably reported to the 
House of Representatives. On August 3, 1999, the House passed 
H.R. 987 by a vote 217 to 209.
    On November 23, 1999, OSHA proposed the ergonomic standard, 
and allowed a ninety-day comment period. Most of this comment 
period would have occurred while Congress was not in session. 
On December 16, 1999 Chairman Bill Goodling and Subcommittee 
Chairmen Cass Ballenger, John Boehner and Pete Hoekstra wrote 
the Secretary of Labor requesting an extension of the comment 
period. The Secretary extended the comment for an additional 
thirty days.
    Many aspects of the proposed Ergonomics Program were of 
concern to the subcommittee. OSHA has estimated that the annual 
cost of the regulation will be four billion dollars. The Small 
Business Administration estimated annual costs to be eighteen 
billion dollars. Private organizations had estimates of far 
higher annual costs. By any estimate, the Ergonomics Program 
will be the most expensive regulation ever promulgated by OSHA. 
Also, the proposed Ergonomics Program would require employers 
to be responsible for minor injuries and injuries not caused by 
work. These requirements will force employers to engage in 
expensive and fruitless quests to eradicate phantom hazards 
from the workplace.
    On March 1, 2000, Chairman Bill Goodling and Subcommittee 
Chairmen Cass Ballenger, John Boehner and Pete Hoekstra 
submitted comments on the proposed ergonomic standard. The 
Chairmen expressed their strong opposition to the proposal. The 
Chairmen cited the lack of understanding of the causes and 
treatments of musculo-skeletal disorders, the declining numbers 
of ergonomic injuries, and the excessive estimated cost of the 
proposal as reasons for their opposition.
    Both the House of Representatives and the Senate 
successfully attached a provision to the Labor/HHS/Education 
appropriations bill, H.R. 4577, that would prohibit OSHA funds 
from being spent to promulgate any final standard on 
ergonomics. The House of Representatives passed the provision 
on June 8, 2000, and the Senate passed the provision on June 
22, 2000.
    In negotiations with the administration regarding the final 
version of the FY01 Labor/HHS appropriations bill, an 
alternative provision has been discussed. The proposal under 
consideration would allow the ergonomics regulation to be 
finalized but would provide the next President with an 
opportunity to expeditiously rescind the regulation early in 
2001, rather than undertake an entirely new rulemaking process 
to overturn the existing regulation.

Proposed revisions to OSHA's recordkeeping regulations

    On July 20, 2000 the Workforce Protections Subcommittee 
held a hearing to review OSHA's 1996 proposed Recordkeeping 
Standard and to consider its impact on the proposed Ergonomics 
Program. OSHA proposed the revised Recordkeeping Standard on 
February 2, 1996. The proposal followed ten years of discussion 
on the need to revise the Recordkeeping Standard.
    The witnesses included Frank White, the Vice-President of 
Organization Resources Counselors, Eamonn McGeady, President of 
Martin G. Imbach, William R. Steinmetz, Risk and Safety 
Consultant, Eric Frumin, Director of Occupation Safety and 
Health, Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile 
Employees, and Eugene Scalia, Partner, Gibson, Dunn and 
Crutcher.
    The OSHA Recordkeeping Standard establishes: (1) which 
injuries and illnesses are recordable, (2) which employers must 
keep records of occupational injuries, (3) what those records 
must include, and (4) how they must be kept. The proposed 
revision affects each of these areas. Witnesses expressed their 
concerns that the finalized text of the proposed standard would 
require recordable injuries to be ``reasonably and 
demonstrably'' related to work and would require employers to 
record minor injuries. In response to a question about how low 
the proposal's threshold was for recording minor injuries 
Eugene Scalia responded:

          It is extraordinarily low, so low that employers and 
        OSHA are going to end up spending a lot of time 
        tracking down problems that they cannot do anything 
        about, as opposed to having a recordkeeping system that 
        focuses everybody on the problems that are really 
        severe and are really likely to be fixable by OSHA and 
        employers and unions and employees.

    In an important exchange, Oversight and Investigations 
Chairman Pete Hoekstra questioned Eugene Scalia about the 
linkage between the recordkeeping Standard and the proposed 
Ergonomics Program. Eugene Scalia answered:

          Under the proposed ergonomics rule, the employer 
        would have all the same obligations toward the 
        condition as if the employer actually had caused it. 
        The employer would have to make enormous changes in the 
        job, possibly in an elusive attempt to eliminate a 
        supposed ergonomic risk factor, even though, again, the 
        employee came in and said, ``I have developed carpal-
        tunnel syndrome, and my doctors told me it is a genetic 
        condition in my case. That is what happened to me, and 
        it hurts me to work.'' The employer would have to say, 
        ``Well, I had better change your job, and I had better 
        go around and look at probably changing all the other 
        jobs that are similar to it if there is a chance that 
        those jobs also might aggravate such a condition.

    Witness testimony established that the proposed 
Recordkeeping Revisions would require employers to record minor 
injuries and to record injuries incurred outside of work as 
work-related. In addition to imposing paperwork burdens on 
employers, these requirements would force employers to take 
drastic actions under the Ergonomics Program because of 
employees' minor aches and pains injuries caused by factors 
outside of work.

Safety and Health Audits and Whistleblower Improvement Act

    The Subcommittee on Workforce Protections also approved 
H.R. 1439, the ``Safety and Health Audit Promotion and 
Whistleblower Improvement Act'' on May 19, 1999. The bill was 
ordered favorably reported to the full committee by voice vote. 
This legislation combined two areas of concern for employers 
and employees alike. The first is the need for employers to be 
able to conduct self-audits to improve safety and health 
conditions in their workplaces without fear of the results of 
their audits being used against them by OSHA. The second is the 
concern for employees to be able to report violations of safety 
and health regulations without fear of retaliation and with the 
assurance that some action will be taken by the Department of 
Labor to investigate their claims. The full committee did not 
take any further action on the bill, however, because of a 
commitment by OSHA that it would revise its policy on self-
audits and because of differing views about the appropriate 
procedural remedy for whistleblowers. The final OSHA policy on 
self-audits was released in early fall 2000.

Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act and OSHA's Bloodborne Pathogens 
        Standard

    On June 22, 2000, the subcommittee convened to hear 
testimony on OSHA's Compliance Directive on Enforcement 
Procedures for Bloodborne Pathogens (Compliance Directive) and 
the prevention of needlestick injuries. OSHA's Bloodborne 
Pathogens Standard, 29 C.F.R. 1910.1030, was first issued in 
1991. OSHA issued the revised Compliance Directive on 
enforcement procedures for the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard in 
November 1999.
    While the focus of the hearing was the OSHA Compliance 
Directive, the larger issue under examination was needlestick 
safety and prevention in health care settings. This focus was 
due to the convergence of two critical circumstances. The first 
circumstance was the increased concern over accidental 
needlestick injuries in health care settings. ``Needlesticks'' 
is a term used broadly, as health care workers can suffer 
injuries from a broad array of ``sharps'' used in health care 
settings, from needles to IV catheters to lancets. The second 
circumstance was the technological advancements made over the 
past decade in the many types of engineering controls, namely 
``safer medical devices'' that can be used in the workplace to 
help protect health care workers against sharps injuries. The 
recent evidence and attention over the spread of hepatitis C 
added to the importance of the subcommittee examining this 
occupational safety and public health issue.
    The subcommittee heard testimony from the assistant 
secretary of OSHA, two experts in public health and infectious 
disease control, a doctor with experience in evaluating and 
implementing safer medical devices and in treating health care 
workers who are injured by needlesticks, and two nurses, one of 
whom was injured by a needlestick and contracted both HIV and 
hepatitis C. The OSHA's assistant secretary testified that the 
Bloodborne Pathogens Standard has been one of OSHA's most 
successful health and safety standards in the nine years since 
it was first put into place. He also emphasized that part of 
its success is the flexibility it provides to employers due to 
its performance-oriented nature. The principal purpose of the 
revised Compliance Directive was to highlight the need for 
employers to make use of ``safer-medical devices''--also known 
as ``safety devices'' or ``safe-needle devices'' to prevent 
against the risk of needlestick injuries. Although there are 
many types of safer medical devices, the distinguishing feature 
of these devices is that there is a safety mechanism built-in 
to the device which protects the health care worker from 
exposure to the sharp.
    In addition to the Compliance Directive, however, witnesses 
urged Congress to pass legislation that would make it clear to 
employers the direction provided by OSHA as to the use of safer 
medical devices. Compliance Directives are merely statements of 
OSHA policy. While at the time of the hearing there was one 
House bill which addressed the needlestick issue, that bill had 
been introduced prior to the OSHA revised Compliance Directive 
and did not take into account the direction provided by OSHA.
    Following the subcommittee hearing, Chairman Ballenger 
worked with interested parties, the Department of Labor, and 
the Senate to craft bipartisan legislation that built upon the 
work of the Compliance Directive. Chairman Ballenger introduced 
H.R. 5178, the ``Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act,'' on 
September 18, 2000. The legislation was co-sponsored by the 
ranking member of the subcommittee, Representative Owens (D-
NY). Ninety members of the House soon joined as cosponsors and 
the bill enjoyed wide-spread support from employer and employee 
groups alike, including the American Hospital Association and 
the American Nurses Association. The following day Senators 
Jeffords and Enzi subsequently introduced the companion bill in 
the Senate with the co-sponsorship of Senators Kennedy and 
Reid.
    The legislation directly amends OSHA's Bloodborne Pathogens 
Standard, 29 C.F.R. 1910.1030 not the OSH Act itself. It 
directs employers to consider and, where appropriate, use 
medical devices that reduce the risk of needlesticks and other 
injuries from sharp medical devices. Employers with employees 
who may be exposed to bloodborne pathogens are required to use 
safer medical devices only where such devices are appropriate, 
effective and commercially available. The bill directs the 
Secretary of Labor to make the changes to the standard exactly 
as prescribed by Congress within six months of enactment of 
this bill and to publish the changes in the Federal Register. 
The changes themselves go into effect 90 days after publication 
in the Federal Register.
    The legislation also requires employers to record sharps 
injuries in a sharps injury log. The log would record, at a 
minimum, the type of device used, an explanation of the 
incident, and where the injury occurred. The information 
contained in the log would help employers refine their Exposure 
Control Plan and help further reduce the number of sharps 
injuries. Employers who are exempt from maintaining OSHA 200 
logs, such as employers with 10 or fewer employees would be 
likewise exempt from maintaining a sharps injury log. The 
legislation also requires employers to solicit and document the 
input of non-managerial health care workers in the selection 
and use of effective engineering and work practice controls.
    The subcommittee held a markup of the bill on September 19, 
2000. At markup, a substitute amendment was offered (correcting 
two typographical errors) and the bill was passed by a 
unanimous voice vote without amendment. The next week, Chairman 
Goodling discharged the bill from full committee and allowed it 
to go to the floor for a vote. A substitute, which made a 
technical change, was offered by Representative Ballenger on 
the floor, and the bill was passed by the House under 
suspension of the rules on October 3, 2000. The Senate took up 
the House bill and passed it by unanimous consent on October 
26, 2000. The President is expected to sign the bill into law.

General Accounting Office report reviewing the coordination of Federal 
        Agency Safety and Health Programs

    On September 14, 1999, Chairman Cass Ballenger requested 
that the General Accounting Office (GAO) identify the key 
federal agencies responsible for promoting workplace safety and 
health and examine the interrelation among key federal agencies 
regarding enforcement policy, including the potential for 
overlaps or gaps in enforcement. The GAO identified six 
executive agencies and fourteen component agencies or offices 
that are responsible for enforcing at least thirty seven 
different federal laws governing workplace safety and health 
for workers in private industry. In examining the 
interrelationships among key agencies, the GAO focused on 
federal agencies engaged in protecting health and safety at 
hazardous material work places. The GAO examined the efforts of 
four agencies: the Occupational Health and Safety 
Administration (OSHA), the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and the 
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.
    In an October 2000 report, the GAO found that these 
agencies' functions overlap and cause duplicative requirements 
to be placed on employers. The GAO concluded that the 
overlapping requirements lead to confusion and additional 
compliance burdens. For example, facility managers believe that 
they have to develop multiple emergency plans to address 
overlapping OSHA and EPA emergency requirements. The managers 
believe that the overlapping plans could cause confusion as to 
which plan to use in an emergency and whom to notify in 
emergencies.
    The GAO also found that all four agencies use Memorandums 
of Understanding (MOU) as their primary vehicle for interagency 
coordination. However, the GAO found little evidence that 
agency staff followed these MOUs. Finally, the GAO found that 
the agencies lacked procedures for developing long-term 
strategies and mechanisms for obtaining the views of employees 
and labor unions that are important to coordination issues.

General Accounting office report on DOL enforcement actions at 
        companies experiencing labor unrest

    On May 7, 1997 Chairman Cass Ballenger and Chairman Pete 
Hoekstra of Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, asked 
the GAO to study OSHA inspections at establishments 
experiencing labor unrest. Specifically, the Congressmen 
requested that the GAO determine: (1) the extent to which 
employers experiencing labor unrest are more likely to be 
inspected than employers not experiencing labor unrest, and (2) 
whether OSHA has policies for performing inspections during 
periods of labor unrest and whether these policies are 
followed. The details of this request and the subsequent report 
are fully covered under the activities of the Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations.

                C. mine safety and health administration

    Mine safety and health is another significant issue within 
the subcommittee's jurisdiction. The Subcommittee on Workforce 
Protections met on September 14, 2000 to review mine safety and 
health and the state of the industry today, as part of the 
subcommittee's jurisdiction over the Department of Labor's Mine 
Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). This was the second 
hearing by the subcommittee held specifically to review the 
Federal Mine Safety and Health Act (MSH Act). The first hearing 
was held in 1998 and provided a broad-based review of the Act 
and its administration by MSHA. The hearing in the 106th 
Congress focused on the current state of safety and health in 
the modern day mining industry and posited whether the Act is 
in need of some reform given its 30-year age and the state of 
the modern mining industry and its current record on safety.
    Witnesses included the Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety 
and Health from the Department of Labor; the Vice President for 
Safety and Health from the National Mining Association; the 
President of Eastern Industries in Pennsylvania representing 
the National Stone Association--National Aggregates 
Association, the administrator for Occupational Health and 
Safety with the United Mine Workers of America, and an attorney 
from Jackson & Kelly, a firm which represents industry in mine 
safety and health matters. All of the witnesses had extensive 
experience with the history of the Mine Act and with its 
administration by MSHA. This was the first appearance by 
Assistant Secretary McAteer before the Subcommittee.
    The Federal Mine Safety and Health Act establishes safety 
and health regulations for surface and underground mines and 
authorizes the Department of Labor to enforce the regulations. 
In addition to coal mines, the MSH Act also regulates other 
types of mines and quarries, including sand, gravel, stone and 
mineral quarries. Unlike the OSH Act, the MSH Act does not 
preempt more stringent state requirements. Several major mining 
states maintain their own safety and health laws, including 
separate inspections and enforcement. In addition, title IV of 
the MSH Act establishes the federal Black Lung Benefits program 
for coal miners found to have pneumoconiosis. Since 1990, the 
MSH Act has been amended only once--in 1990 by the Budget 
Reconciliation Act, which increased the maximum penalty for 
citations issued against mine operators from $10,000 to 
$50,000.
    The MSH Act is sometimes cited as an example of a 
regulatory program that has succeeded as ``shown by the 
numbers.'' Indeed, mining fatalities have dropped dramatically 
since the early 1900's. While there is no dispute that mining 
is one of the most dangerous occupations for workers, the last 
five years have been the safest on record for the U.S. mining 
industry. The work by the industry in making safety a top 
priority has paid off.
    Statistically, mining is no longer the most hazardous 
industry. In 1995, there were 43 fatalities in the coal mining 
industry. In 1997 there were 30 fatalities in the coal 
industry--an all-time low. Today, the most advanced and 
productive mines operate with very few workers in the mining 
area. On the other hand, fatalities in metal/non-metal (non-
coal) mining have increased recently. In 1992 there were 36 
deaths, and in 1997 there were 61 deaths in this part of the 
mining industry.
    Because the structure of the MSH Act is simply one of 
enforcement and penalty, the testimony and discussion at the 
hearing focused on whether the Act should be modified to give 
those operators who have outstanding safety records some relief 
from the stringent control of the Mine Safety and Health 
Administration. While no specific legislative proposals were 
reviewed at the hearing, the chief topic of discussion was 
whether it is time for the Act to be modified tocreate and 
allow for a more cooperative approach with those aspects of the 
industry who have demonstrated commitments to safety and health. The 
Assistant Secretary for MSHA testified that he is responsible for 
administering the Act as it is currently written. However, all 
witnesses agreed that opening a dialogue about possible improvements in 
the Act would be a constructive next step.

D. federal employees compensation act (feca) and the office of worker's 
                      compensation programs (OWCP)

    On October 3, 2000, the subcommittee convened to hear 
testimony concerning the results of a General Accounting Office 
(GAO) report regarding customer communications problems with 
the federal Office of Worker's Compensation Programs (OWCP) at 
the Department of Labor. OWCP administers the Federal Employees 
Compensation Act (FECA), which is the exclusive workers 
compensation program for federal agencies, including the Postal 
Service.
    The hearing focused on the GAO's recent review of how the 
OWCP communicates with injured federal workers, employing 
agencies, and medical and other service providers who are 
involved in the treatment of such workers. GAO conducted the 
review at the request of Chairman Ballenger, who has over the 
years heard numerous complaints from claimants and other 
Congressional offices about the difficulty in communicating 
with the OWCP.
    The following individuals testified at the hearing: Mr. 
Michael Brostek, Director of the Tax Administration and Justice 
Division at GAO; Ms. Patricia Dalton, Office of the Inspector 
General, U.S. Department of Labor; and Mr. Shelby Hallmark, 
Acting Director of the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs 
at the U.S. Department of Labor.
    The Federal Employees' Compensation program (FEC) covers 
nearly three million civilian federal employees, providing 
compensation and benefits to individuals who sustain a work-
related injury or illness in the performance of duty. Coverage 
under the FEC program is also extended to employees of entities 
wholly owned by the United States, such as the U.S. Postal 
Service and the Tennessee Valley Authority, and to law 
enforcement officers injured in connection with federal crimes, 
VISTA and Peace Corps volunteers. The benefits provided under 
the FEC program include payments for medical expenses, 
vocational rehabilitation services, bodily impairment or 
disfigurement, and survivor's compensation.
    Claims under the FEC program are administered and 
adjudicated by the OWCP, a branch of the Department of Labor's 
Employment Standards Administration. The OWCP has 12 district 
offices nationwide with about 900 employees who administer 
FECA. The district offices operate under the authority and 
guidance of OWCP headquarters and provide services to claimants 
living within several states. The offices are responsible for 
adjudicating claims, approving wage loss claims, paying medical 
bills, and responding to inquiries from customers.
    During fiscal year 1998 (the most recent data available), 
165,135 new cases were created and the FEC program provided 
more than $1.9 billion in benefits for work-related injury or 
illness to nearly 262,000 federal workers. OWCP estimates that 
they receive 2.6 million phone calls and 5.5 million pieces of 
mail each year from customers (claimants, medical providers, 
agencies and others).
    GAO's review focused on OWCP's performance in responding to 
claimants' and other customers' inquiries, both over the 
telephone and in written correspondence. The key points of 
GAO's review were that: (1) OWCP provides widely-varying 
service levels across its district offices for those attempting 
to reach OWCP representatives by phone; (2) OWCP does not set 
any goals for some important areas of telephone and written 
communications. What few goals it has in place are not 
challenging; (3) OWCP often does not collect timely or credible 
performance data to gauge progress in attaining its goals; and 
(4) OWCP does not adequately survey injured workers, medical 
providers, and others to determine levels of satisfaction or 
follow many other practices that the National Partnership for 
Reinventing Government's (NPRG) model organizations use to 
improve customer service.
    In concluding, GAO recommended that the Secretary of Labor 
require the Director of OWCP to establish goals for telephone 
and written communications; collect credible performance data 
on progress toward meeting the goals, including the use of 
timely, periodic surveys; and use the performance data and 
survey results to identify areas needing improvement and set 
goals to achieve those results. Mr. Shelby Hallmark, Acting 
Director, Office of Workers Compensation Programs, Employment 
Standards Administration, testified that the OWCP was moving to 
implement a national call center that would begin to develop 
systems and performance measurements. Mr. Hallmark stated that 
they were very aware of the areas that needed improvement, and 
the GAO study had been beneficial in reinforcing the need for 
constant telephone monitoring of the telephone systems. In 
addition, the Acting Inspector General testified about 
recommendations OIG had made to strengthen the program. Some 
were administrative and could be resolved by OWCP, but there 
were other solutions that were legislative or budgetary in 
nature. Ms. Dalton stated that their findings and 
recommendations focused on making the FECA Program operate more 
effectively and efficiently, while ensuring the integrity of 
the program. Overall, the GAO study offered an important 
opportunity for the Subcommittee to review OWCP and consider 
opportunities for legislative reform in the future.

                 II. Hearings Held by the Subcommittee


106th Congress, First Session

    February 23, 1999--Hearing to Examine the Impact of the 
Fair Labor Standards Act on Volunteer Firefighters (106-4).
    March 23, 1999--Hearing on Oversight of the Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration (106-13).
    April 13, 1999--Hearing on the Fair Labor Standards Act: 
Rewarding Performance in Compensation Act (106-17).
    April 21, 1999--Hearing on H.R. 987, the ``Workplace 
Preservation Act;'' H.R. 1438, the ``Safety and Health Audit 
Promotion Act;'' H.R. 1439, the ``Safety and Health Audit 
Promotion and Whistleblower Improvement Act,'' and H.R. 1459, 
the ``Models of Safety and Health Excellence Act'' (106-26).
    May 13, 1999--Hearing on H.R. 1434, a bill to amend the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (106-38).
    October 21, 1999--Hearing on H.R. 1886, ``MSPA 
Clarification Act;'' H.R. 2757, ``Housing Opportunities for 
Migrant Employees;'' H.R. 3121, Amending the Migrant and 
Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (106-78).

106th Congress, Second Session

    March 2, 2000--Hearing on the Treatment of Stock Options 
and Employee Investment Opportunities under the Fair Labor 
Standards Act (106-90).
    May 3, 2000--Hearing on the Fair Labor Standards Act: 
White-Collar Exemptions in the Modern Work Place(106-104).
    June 22, 2000--Hearing on OSHA's Compliance Directive on 
Bloodborne Pathogens and the Prevention of Needlestick Injuries 
(106-112).
    July 20, 2000--Hearing on OSHA's Recordkeeping Standard: 
Stakeholder Views of the 1996 Proposal (106-116).
    September 14, 2000--Hearing on Review of Mine Safety & 
Health: The State of the Industry Today (106-120).
    October 3, 2000--Hearing on Injured Federal Workers on 
Hold: Customer Communications at DOL's Office of Workers' 
Compensation Programs (106-131).

                 III. Markups Held by the Subcommittee


106th Congress, First Session

    May 19, 1999--H.R. 1439, ``Safety and Health Audit 
Promotion and Whistleblower Act of 1999'' was ordered favorably 
reported to the Full Committee by voice vote.
    H.R. 1381, ``Rewarding Performance in Compensation Act'' 
was ordered favorably reported to the Full Committee by voice 
vote.
    H.R. 987, ``Workplace Preservation Act was ordered 
favorably reported to the Full Committee by voice vote.

106th Congress, Second Session

    September 19, 2000 H.R. 5178, ``Needlestick Safety and 
Prevention Act'' was ordered favorably reported as amended to 
the Full Committee by voice vote.

                      IV. Subcommittee Statistics

Total Number of Bills and Resolutions Referred to Subcommittee....    93
Total Number of Hearings..........................................    12
    Field.........................................................     0
    Joint with Other Committees...................................     0
Total Number of Subcommittee Markup Sessions......................     2
Total Number of Bills Reported From Subcommittee..................     4

                SUBCOMMITTEE ON POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION


                        I. Summary of Activities


                        A. HIGHER EDUCATION ACT

1. H.R. 4504, Higher Education Technical Amendments of 2000

    During the 105th Congress, the Committee completed its work 
on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965. 
Enactment of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 made 
significant changes to the student aid programs and the U.S. 
Department of Education was required to convene negotiated rule 
making sessions with the higher education community for the 
purpose of preparing implementing regulations. As regulations 
were promulgated, the subcommittee became aware of specific 
instances where the law was not being implemented as intended. 
By the second session of the 106th Congress, and after 
consulting with the higher education community and the U.S. 
Department of Education, the subcommittee compiled a list of 
specific issues that needed to be addressed in a technical 
corrections bill.
    On May 19, 2000, Representative Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
(R-CA) introduced H.R. 4504, the Higher Education Technical 
Amendments of 2000. H.R. 4504 makes necessary technical 
corrections and includes clarifying language to the Higher 
Education Amendments of 1998 (P.L. 105-244). In addition, the 
bill also includes specific policy changes that are necessary 
in order to ensure that the 1998 amendments are implemented as 
intended. On the basis of further recommendations from 
Committee members and the higher education community, an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute was prepared.
    H.R. 4504 contains a number of provisions that further the 
goal of improving our student financial assistance programs for 
students, families, and schools. Specifically, H.R. 4504 
reduces the grant repayment burden on students who must 
withdraw from school prior to the completion of a term, 
clarifies congressional intent with respect to aid eligibility 
for students with drug convictions, provides students and their 
families with important campus safety information, gives 
borrowers more options for rehabilitating defaulted Perkins 
Loans and helps certain minority-serving institutions by giving 
them more time to implement and evaluate student loan default 
rate reduction measures.
    Among the amendments accepted by the Committee was a 
provision offered by Representative Matt Salmon (R-AZ) to the 
campus security provisions requiring institutions of higher 
education to disclose their policy regarding the availability 
of information about registered sexually violent offenders 
received from a state pursuant to ``Meagan's Law,'' including a 
statement that they will disclose such information if the state 
provides it. This amendment was similar to a provision under 
the Committee's jurisdiction contained in H.R. 4407, the 
``Campus Protection Act,'' introduced by Representative Salmon 
on May 9, 2000. This provision was later enacted as part of the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 3244, the ``Trafficking 
Victims Protection Act of 2000'', which passed the House on 
October 6, 2000 by a recorded vote of 371-1 and passed the 
Senate on October 11, 2000 by a vote of 95-0 and which became 
Public Law 106-386 on October 28, 2000.
    The Committee on Education and the Workforce considered the 
substitute to H.R. 4504 in legislative session on May 25, 2000. 
The Committee on Education and the Workforce favorably reported 
H.R. 4504 to the House of Representatives by voice vote on May 
25, 2000. On June 12, 2000, the House of Representatives passed 
H.R. 4504 under suspension of the rules, by voice vote. The 
Senate failed to take any action on H.R. 4504 and the Senate 
did not introduce a technical corrections bill of its own.
    Although H.R. 4504 was not acted upon by the Senate, 
several provisions from the House-passed bill were included in 
H.R. 4577, making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, 
Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies 
for fiscal year 2001 as discussed elsewhere in this report.

2. H. R. 3629, Tribal College Amendment to the Higher Education Act

    On February 10, 2000, Representative Mark Green (R-WI) 
introduced H.R. 3629 that made technical corrections to 
Sections 316 and 317 of Title III of the Higher Education Act 
(HEA) with respect to Tribal Colleges and Alaska Native and 
Native Hawaiian-serving institutions. The Committee reported 
H.R. 3629 by voice vote on April 12, 2000. The House of 
Representatives passed H.R. 3629 under suspension of the rules, 
by voice vote on May 2, 2000. On May 18, 2000, the United 
States Senate passed H.R. 3629 without amendment by unanimous 
consent. On May 26, 2000, H.R. 3629 was signed by the president 
and became Public Law 106-211.
    The changes included in H.R. 3629 are all designed to 
simplify the Title III grant application process for Tribal 
Colleges and Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving 
institutions of higher education. The first technical change 
requires the secretary of education to develop a simplified 
grant application process for the limited number of 
institutions eligible for funds under Section 316 and Section 
317 of the Higher Education Act. The Committee heard from many 
of these institutions who indicated that the costs associated 
with the lengthy application process was prohibitive for 
institutions with limited resources.
    The second change allows institutions to apply for a new 
grant without waiting until two years have elapsed after the 
expiration of a prior grant. Existing law allowed an 
institution to receive a grant for a five-year period and then 
required an institution to wait for two years after the 
expiration of the grant before applying for another grant. 
After consulting with these institutions and the U.S. 
Department of Education, the Committee determined that there 
was no need for a wait-out period in this program due to the 
funding available and the limited number of institutions 
eligible for grant assistance. By removing this restriction, 
funds for institutional development will go to the maximum 
number of institutions that submit a qualified application.

3. H.R. 3210, College Scholarship Fraud Prevention Act of 1999

    On November 3, 1999, Representative Fred Upton (R-MI) 
introduced H.R. 3210, the ``College Scholarship Fraud 
Prevention Act of 1999.'' This bill was identical to S. 1455, 
introduced in the Senate by Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI) on 
July 28, 1999. S. 1455 passed the Senate onNovember 4, 1999, by 
unanimous consent. Both bills were referred to the House Committee on 
the Judiciary with the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
entitled to sequential referral. The House Committee on the Judiciary 
and this Committee both discharged S. 1455 allowing it to go to the 
House floor without either committee holding a mark-up of the bill. The 
House passed S. 1455 by voice vote on September 25, 2000 and the bill 
was signed by the president and became Public Law 106-420 on November 
1, 2000.
    The College Scholarship Fraud Prevention Act directs the 
United States Sentencing Commission to amend the federal 
sentencing guidelines to provide for enhanced penalties for any 
offense involving fraud or misrepresentation in connection with 
providing, or furnishing information to a consumer, on any 
scholarship, grant, loan, tuition, discount, award or other 
financial assistance for financing an education at an 
institution of higher education. In addition, the bill directs 
the secretary of education and the attorney general, in 
conjunction with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), to jointly 
submit to Congress each year a report on fraud in the offering 
of financial assistance for financing an education at an 
institution of higher education and requires the secretary of 
education in conjunction with the FTC to maintain a scholarship 
fraud awareness site on the Internet web site of the U.S. 
Department of Education.
    This legislation was a direct result of families being 
victimized by scholarship scams. Phony scholarship offerings, 
scams and other fraudulent offerings do great harm to our 
nation's students who are searching for ways to help pay the 
ever-increasing costs of a college education. This bill targets 
persons who would engage in these unlawful activities and 
allows for enhanced criminal penalties for offenses involving 
scholarship scams. In addition, the web site required under 
this bill will provide valuable information with respect to 
scholarship fraud so students will have a source of information 
for verifying whether they are being offered legitimate 
scholarship aid.

4. H.R. 1180, Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 
        1999

    Section 409 of H.R. 1180, the ``Ticket to Work and Work 
Incentives Improvement Act of 1999,'' contains a provision that 
would update the index on which lender returns are based in the 
Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP). In 1998, when 
the Committee reauthorized the Higher Education Act of 1965, we 
recognized that the 91-day Treasury bill, which is the index 
used for the last 25 years to determine the interest rate on 
guaranteed student loans, is an out of date tool for 
determining lender yields. T-bill based payments made sense 
when the loan program was conceived. However, financial markets 
have evolved, and most lenders now fund their portfolios using 
more commonly traded instruments such as commercial paper (CP) 
or London interbank offered rate (LIBOR) rates.
    The Committee had anticipated making such a change during 
the reauthorization process. However, the complexity of the 
issue required the formation of a study group, made up of a 
broad range of stakeholders in the program, to determine the 
financial instrument that would be most efficient and cost 
effective. The provision in H.R. 1180 is based on the most 
promising recommendation considered by the study group. Section 
409 was added to H.R. 1180 during consideration by the 
conference committee, both as a way to increase efficiency in 
the student loan program, and to offset some of the costs 
associated with the Ticket to Work Act. H.R. 1180 was signed 
into law by the president on December 17, 1999. It is now 
Public Law 106-170.

                           B. TEACHER QUALITY

1. H.R. 1995, Teacher Empowerment Act

    H.R. 1995 amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
of 1965 to improve student achievement through high-quality 
professional development for teachers. The bill consolidates 
and streamlines the Eisenhower Professional Development 
Program, Goals 2000, and the ``100,000 New Teachers'' program 
to provide states and local schools additional flexibility in 
the use of these funds, in exchange for increased 
accountability to parents and taxpayers. Additionally, it 
affords teachers more choice in selecting high-quality 
professional development programs.
            Hearings
    The Committee on Education and the Workforce held five 
hearings relating to this bill.
    On April 29, 1999, the Subcommittee on Postsecondary 
Education, Training and Life-Long Learning held a hearing on 
``Improving Student Achievement: Examining the Impact of 
Teacher Quality and Class Size.'' The subcommittee received 
testimony from teachers, researchers, and other experts in the 
area of teacher quality.
    On May 5, 1999, the Subcommittee on Postsecondary 
Education, Training and Life-Long Learning held a hearing on 
``Flexibility for Quality Programs and Innovative Ideas for 
High Quality Teachers.'' The hearing examined existing programs 
and witnesses included individuals involved in implementing 
successful programs designed to improve teacher quality.
    On May 10, 1999, the Subcommittee on Postsecondary 
Education, Training and Life-Long Learning held a hearing in 
Granada Hills, California. The hearing focused on ``Teacher 
Quality: The California Experience.'' The subcommittee received 
testimony from numerous education officials involved in 
projects to improve teacher quality in California.
    On May 13, 1999, the Subcommittee on Postsecondary 
Education, Training and Life-Long Learning held a hearing on 
``Developing and Maintaining a High-Quality Teacher Force.'' 
The subcommittee received testimony from experts at the 
national level familiar with state and local programs designed 
to improve teacher quality.
    On June 10, 1999 the Subcommittee on Postsecondary 
Education, Training and Life-Long Learning held a joint hearing 
with the Committee on Science in Washington, D.C. The hearing, 
entitled ``K-12 Math and Science Education--Finding, Training 
and Keeping Good Teachers,'' included numerous witnesses 
involved in programs designed to improve the quality of math 
and science education teachers.
    On June 1, 2000, the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce held a field hearing in Indianapolis, Indiana on 
``Excellence in Teaching.'' The witnesses, who included 
severalteachers and a principal, discussed initiatives within their 
schools to help teachers improve student academic achievement.
    On September 13, 2000, the Subcommittee on Postsecondary 
Education, Training, and Life-Long Learning held a hearing on 
``Recruitment and Retention of Quality Teachers.'' Witnesses 
included teachers who entered teaching through alternative 
routes as well as other educators and a business representative 
involved in reforms to improve teacher quality.
            H.R. 1995, Teacher Empowerment Act
    On May 27, 1999, Representative Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
(R-CA) introduced H.R. 1995, the ``Teacher Empowerment Act.'' 
On June 30, 1999, the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
assembled to consider H.R. 1995, the ``Teacher Empowerment 
Act.'' An amendment in the nature of a substitute, offered by 
Chairman Bill Goodling (R-PA), was adopted by voice vote, and 
the bill, as amended, was favorably reported by the Committee 
on Education and the Workforce by a vote of 27 to 19. On July 
14, 1999, the bill was reported as amended, and referred to the 
House Committee on Armed Services. On that day, the House 
Committee on Armed Services discharged the bill and it was 
placed on the Union Calendar. On July 20, the House passed the 
Teacher Empowerment Act, as amended, by a vote of 239 to 185.
    The ``Teacher Empowerment Act'' (TEA) is based upon three 
principles: teacher excellence, smaller classes, and local 
choices. It was designed to provide a major boost to schools in 
their efforts to establish and support a high quality teaching 
force. TEA combines the funding of several current federal 
education programs, including Goals 2000, the ``100,000 New 
Teachers'' Class Size Reduction program and the Eisenhower 
Professional Development program, into a single $2 billion 
grant to states and localities. Using these funds, they will 
have the support and flexibility necessary to improve academic 
achievement through such initiatives as providing high quality 
training for teachers and reducing class size.
    The Committee notes that efforts to improve academic 
achievement take many forms. There is no single solution. 
Indeed, for every school there are different approaches that 
are appropriate to their particular circumstances. The TEA 
legislation reflects this reality and provides the flexibility 
to local school districts in how these funds may be directed. 
However, TEA steers schools toward focusing upon efforts, such 
as improving teacher quality, that have proven results of 
academic success, while not imposing any one-size-fits-all 
approach dictated from Washington.

2. H.R. 5034, The Quality Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act of 2000

    The ``Quality Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act of 
2000'' directs the secretary of education to carry out a 
program of student loan forgiveness in exchange for the 
borrower's commitment to three consecutive years of full-time 
teaching in low-income schools or special education teaching.
            Hearings
    On September 13, 2000, the Subcommittee on Postsecondary 
Education, Training and Life-Long Learning held a hearing 
entitled ``Recruitment and Retention of Quality Teachers.'' At 
that hearing, it was made clear that loan forgiveness can be a 
highly successful incentive for encouraging some of our best 
and brightest graduates to enter the teaching profession. 
Testifying before the subcommittee, a National Teacher of the 
Year noted how a loan forgiveness program provided an incentive 
to him and more than a dozen other college classmates to shift 
from chemistry, physics and other math and science fields, into 
teaching. In addition, business groups have also been outspoken 
on the need for teacher loan forgiveness. For example, the 
California Business for Education Excellence has as one of its 
top priorities the expansion of teacher loan forgiveness 
programs. Specifically, they believe the amount and rate of 
loan forgiveness should be accelerated in order to recruit and 
retain teachers for hard-to-fill jobs. While there may be many 
individuals who would like to enter teaching, the relatively 
low starting salaries make it difficult for those struggling 
with paying off student loans. This program opens new doors for 
these prospective teachers and provides opportunities for 
schools to have a deeper pool from which to hire the best and 
brightest teachers.
    On July 27, 2000, Representative Lindsey Graham (R-SC) 
introduced H.R. 5034, the ``Quality Teacher Recruitment and 
Retention Act of 2000.'' The Committee discharged H.R. 5034 
without taking any action on the bill. H.R. 5034 passed the 
House by voice vote on September 26, 2000. The Senate has not 
taken any action on the bill.
            H.R. 5034, The Quality Teacher Recruitment and Retention 
                    Act of 2000
    H.R. 5034 is designed to help high-need school districts 
recruit and retain high quality teachers. To accomplish this 
goal, the bill authorizes forgiveness of student loans for 
certain eligible teachers who are new teachers on or after 
August 1, 2001. To be eligible, a teacher must serve in a Title 
I school that has 30 percent or more of its students at or 
below the poverty level. In addition, secondary teachers must 
be teaching in a subject area relevant to their academic major. 
Primary teachers must be held to quality standards developed by 
the chief administrative officer of the school district. A 
teacher who meets these requirements is eligible for loan 
forgiveness of $5,000 after the third year of service and 
$7,500 after the fourth year and the fifth year of service. The 
maximum amount of loan forgiveness for an individual teacher is 
limited to $20,000.
    H.R. 5034 makes a special exception for special education 
teachers. All special education teachers who meet the teaching 
criteria will be eligible for loan forgiveness, regardless of 
where they teach. The legislation included this special 
exception in light of the difficulty of recruiting and 
retaining teachers in this specialty.

                         C. OLDER AMERICANS ACT

Hearings

    On March 2, 1999, in Washington, DC, the Subcommittee on 
Postsecondary Education, Training, and Life-Long Learning held 
the first in a series of six hearings on the authorization of 
the Older Americans Act. The hearing focused on issues ranging 
from ensuring local flexibility,to streamlining and simplifying 
aging services programs, to providing quality services to those seniors 
who are most in need. Witnesses included key representatives from the 
national aging network. The second hearing was held on the morning of 
April 6, 1999, in Alhambra, California at the Alhambra City Hall. 
Witnesses included key representatives from the local aging network. 
The third hearing was held on the afternoon of April 6, 1999, in Santa 
Clarita, California at the Santa Clarita Valley Senior Center. 
Witnesses included key representatives from the local aging network. 
The fourth hearing was held on April 8, 1999, in North Platte, Nebraska 
at the West Central Research and Extension Center for the University of 
Nebraska. Witnesses included key representatives from the Nebraska 
aging network and senior citizens who participated in OAA programs. The 
fifth hearing was held on April 15, 1999, in Washington, D.C. The 
hearing focused on the Senior Community Service Employment Program 
(Title V of the Older Americans Act). Witnesses included 
representatives from the U.S. General Accounting Office, three of the 
ten national organizations that receive funds through the program, and 
one of the many state agencies that receives funds through the program. 
The sixth and final hearing was held on May 19, 1999, in Washington, 
D.C. Witnesses included Ms. Jeanette Takamura, Assistant Secretary of 
Aging, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Mr. Raymond 
Uhalde, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training 
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor.

H.R. 782, the Older Americans Act Amendments

    The Older Americans Act (OAA) represents the single major 
federal law for the organization and delivery of both 
supportive and nutritional services for the elderly. Supportive 
services can include anything from transportation, information 
and referral to home care and recreation. Nutritional services 
are the largest single component of the OAA and fund the 
popular ``Meals on Wheels'' program, as well as the congregate 
nutrition program. The OAA also funds research activities, 
elder rights protection activities, and the Senior Community 
Service Employment Program (Title V). The act authorizes this 
wide array of programs through a network of 57 state units on 
aging, 660 area agencies on aging, 229 tribal organizations 
(representing 300 tribes), and 27,000 service providers. 
Although the OAA authorization expired in 1995, OAA programs 
have continued to receive funding.
    On February 23, 1999, Representative Bill Barrett (R-NE) 
introduced H.R. 782, a bill to reauthorize the Older Americans 
Act for four years.
    On September 15, 1999, the House Committee on Education and 
the Workforce favorably reported, as amended, H.R. 782, the 
``Older Americans Act Amendments of 1999,'' by voice vote. On 
July 21, 2000, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions favorably reported, as amended, S. 1536, 
the ``Older Americans Act Amendments of 2000,'' by voice vote. 
In early October 2000, the House and Senate reached a 
bipartisan agreement on reauthorization of the Older Americans 
Act.
    On October 25, 2000, the House included the agreement in 
H.R. 782 and passed the ``Older Americans Act Amendments of 
2000'' by a vote of 405 to 2. On October 26, 2000, the Senate 
passed H.R. 782 by a vote of 94 to 0. It was signed into law by 
the president on November 13, 2000, and became P.L. 106-501.

                 II. Hearings Held by the Subcommittee


106th Congress, First Session

    March 2, 1999--Hearing on the Older Americans Act: Meeting 
The Needs Of Our Nation's Seniors (106-7).
    April 6, 1999--Field Hearing on the Older Americans Act: 
Meeting the Needs of Our Nation's Seniors Santa Clarita, CA 
(106-18).
    April 6, 1999--Field Hearing on the Older Americans Act: 
Meeting the Needs of Our Nation's Seniors Alhambra, CA (106-
18).
    April 8, 1999--Field Hearing on ``H.R. 782, Older Americans 
Act: Meeting the Needs of Our Nation's Seniors,'' North Platte, 
Nebraska (106-18).
    April 15, 1999--Hearing on Reauthorization of the Older 
Americans Act (106-23).
    April 29, 1999--Hearing on Improving Student Achievement: 
Examining the Impact of Teacher Quality and Class Size (106-
30).
    May 5, 1999--Hearing on Flexibility for Quality Programs 
and Innovative Ideas for High Quality Teachers (106-31).
    May 10, 1999--Field Hearing on Teacher Quality: The 
California Experience, Granada Hills, CA (106-39).
    May 13, 1999--Hearing on Developing and Maintaining a High-
Quality Teacher Force (106-37).
    May 19, 1999--Hearing on H.R. 782, the Older Americans Act: 
Title V--Community Service Employment (106-40).
    June 10, 1999--Joint Hearing on K-12 Math and Science 
Education: Finding, Training, and Keeping Good Teachers (106-
103).
    September 9, 1999--Hearing on Welfare Reform: Assessing the 
Progress of Work-Related Provisions (106-68).

106th Congress, Second Session

    February 2, 2000--Joint Hearing on The Federal Role in K-12 
Mathematics Reform (106-83)
    June 29, 2000--Joint Hearing on One-Stop Job Centers (106-
115).
    September 13, 2000--Hearing on Recruitment and Retention of 
Quality Teachers (106-121).

                 III. Markups Held by the Subcommittee

    The Subcommittee held no markups.

                      IV. Subcommittee Statistics

Total Number of Bills and Resolutions Referred to Subcommittee....    82
Total Number of Hearings..........................................    15
    Field.........................................................     4
    Joint with Other Committees...................................     3
Total Number of Subcommittee Markup Sessions......................     0
Total Number of Bills Reported From Subcommittee..................     0

          SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, YOUTH AND FAMILIES


                        I. Summary of Activities


A. H.R. 4875, THE SCIENTIFICALLY BASED EDUCATION RESEARCH, STATISTICS, 
                EVALUATION, AND INFORMATION ACT OF 2000

    Chairman Mike Castle introduced H.R. 4875, the 
``Scientifically Based Education, Research, Statistics, 
Evaluation, and Information Act of 2000,'' on July 18, 2000. On 
July 26, 2000, the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and 
Families reported H.R. 4875 by voice vote. No further action 
was taken on this legislation.
    This legislation provides a comprehensive and vastly 
different approach to education research, evaluations, 
statistics and dissemination. For the first time, all education 
research must be based upon scientifically valid standards. 
Under the legislation, the current structure, located primarily 
under the Office of Educational Research and Improvement within 
the Department of Education, is replaced with a new academy 
within the Department of Education. This academy would have 
significant autonomy from the Department and oversee a new 
National Center for Education Research, a National Center for 
Program Evaluation, and the current National Center for 
Education Statistics. In addition, the academy would carry out 
the functions related to the National Education Library as well 
as regional technical assistance.

Hearings

    The Committee on Education and the Workforce and its 
subcommittees, held a total of four hearings regarding the 
reauthorization of the activities of the Office of Educational 
Research and Improvement.
    On May 27, 1999 a hearing was held by the Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations regarding the 1998 Reading Results 
of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)--the 
Nation's Report Card. Witnesses included representatives from 
the National Center for Education Statistics and the National 
Assessment Governing Board.
    On June 17, 1999 the House Committee on Education and the 
Workforce and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions held a joint hearing on the ``Overview of Federal 
Education Research and Evaluation Efforts'' regarding research 
and evaluation. Those who testified included experts with 
knowledge and background in examining research and evaluation 
efforts at the national level.
    On May 4, 2000 the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
held a hearing examining the ``Options for the Future of the 
Office of Educational Research and Improvement.'' The witnesses 
included individuals within the administration involved with 
education research and representatives from the education 
research community.
    On May 11, 2000 the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth 
and Families held a hearing on the ``Authorization of the 
National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment 
of Educational Progress, and National Assessment Governing 
Board.'' The witnesses included representatives from the 
National Assessment Governing Board and the National Center for 
Education Statistics as well as other experts.

H.R. 4875, the Scientifically Based Education Research, Statistics, 
        Evaluation, and Information Act of 2000

    The Committee believes that educators and policymakers must 
have unbiased, reliable and responsive information to prepare 
our nation's children for the challenges of this new century. 
Unfortunately, the federal government does not have an 
effective system in place to ensure that education research and 
other information is available to those that need it most--our 
teachers. At the same time, states and school districts across 
the nation are adopting new accountability measures designed to 
hold teachers and students to new, higher standards of academic 
achievement. For these reasons, the need to know what works and 
what does not work has never been greater.
    Unfortunately, educators and policymakers have grown wary 
of education programs and practices that claim to be the 
``silver bullet'' to improve student academic achievement until 
they fall out of favor with the education community and a new 
fad comes along. As a result, schools find themselves blindly 
following a path they hope will lead to increased academic 
achievement without knowing if these programs are based on 
actual scientific research or just a hunch. Regrettably, these 
fads not only fail to improve student academic achievement--
they can actually be harmful to student learning.
    Not surprisingly, the dissemination of unproven or 
ineffective programs is not a new problem. From 1967 to 1976, 
the federal government managed the largest education experiment 
ever conducted in the United States--comparing more than twenty 
different teacher approaches on more than 70,000 students in 
more than 180 schools. At the end of the study, all of the 
programs, those that were successful and those that failed, 
were recommended for distribution to school districts. In fact, 
some of these programs, even those that were considered a 
failure in the study, were rated as ``exemplary and 
effective.''
    While the wide dissemination of programs that have not been 
validated through scientific research is one problem--the lack 
of quality in research is also a major concern.
    Recently, Congress established a National Reading Panel to 
evaluate existing research on the most effective approaches for 
teaching children to read. The panel examined more than 100,000 
federally funded studies on reading--some written as far back 
as 1966. After an exhaustive review, the panel concluded that, 
of the 100,000 studies, only 10,000 met their standards for 
academic and scientific rigor.
    For this reason, the committee has taken a closer look at 
these activities within the federal government. As part of this 
effort, the committee held several hearings and convened 
numerous meetings with the administration, education groups, 
outside researchers, and other experts inthese fields. Based 
upon information gathered, the committee worked in a bipartisan fashion 
to develop this legislation.

                       B. ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

    The National Environmental Education Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-
619) established a program within the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) to increase public understanding of the 
environment. The program awards grants for developing 
environmental curricula and training teachers, supports 
fellowships to encourage the pursuit of environmental 
professions, selects individuals for environmental awards, and 
sponsors workshops and conferences. Authorization of funding 
for the program expired at the end of FY 1996. However, 
Congress has continued to provide annual appropriations.
    Since enactment of the National Environmental Education Act 
of 1990, questions have been raised about the implementation 
and administration of the programs under it. One such concern 
is whether the programs administered under the act are 
objective and based on accurate scientific data or simply based 
on popular environmental themes. Another concern is that 
education programs intended for elementary and secondary 
children should be under the jurisdiction of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act and administered by the U.S. Department 
of Education, not other governmental entities and agencies. In 
addition, some critics believe that environmental education 
should simply be a part of the normal science curriculum in 
local schools.
    On June 27, 2000, the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 
Youth and Families held a hearing entitled ``Examining the 
National Environmental Education Act.'' The hearing was 
designed to provide a comprehensive review of the 
implementation and administration of the programs under the 
National Environmental Education Act. The subcommittee heard 
from environmental education experts, including the acting 
deputy associate administrator of the Office of Communication, 
Education, and Media Relations at the Environmental Protection 
Agency, and the Chairman of the Board for the National 
Environmental Education and Training Foundation.

                 II. Hearings Held by the Subcommittee


106th Congress, First Session

    February 25, 1999--Hearing on Putting Performance First: 
Ed-Flex and Its Role in Improving Student Performance and 
Reducing Bureaucracy (106-6).
    March 9, 1999--Hearing on School Discipline: What's 
Happening in the Classroom? (106-8).
    March 11, 1999--Hearing on School Violence: Protecting Our 
Children (106-9).
    March 17, 1999--Hearing on Impact Aid: Keeping The Federal 
Promise (106-10).
    March 18, 1999--Hearing on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention Act: Preventing Juvenile Crime at School and in the 
Community (106-12).
    March 25, 1999--Hearing on Juvenile Crime Control and 
Delinquency Prevention Act (106-15).
    April 8, 1999--Field Hearing on What Congress Can Learn 
from Successful State Education Reform Efforts, Scottsdale AZ 
(106-21).
    April 12, 1999--Field Hearing on Education Technology and 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Newark, DE (106-19).
    May 11, 1999--Hearing on Education Technology Programs 
Authorized Under The Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
(ESEA) (106-34).
    May 18, 1999--Hearing on School Violence: Views of Students 
and the Community (106-42).
    May 25, 1999--Hearing on Education Reform--Putting the 
Needs of Our Children First (106-43).
    June 9, 1999--Hearing on Academic Accountability (106-45).
    June 21, 1999--Field Hearing on Title I: Local Efforts to 
Boost Student Achievement (ESEA) Waterford, MI (106-53).
    June 21, 1999--Field Hearing on Preventing Youth Violence 
and Crime: The Role of Families, School, and Government (ESEA), 
Portage, Michigan (106-54).
    June 24, 1999--Hearing on Examining the Bilingual Education 
Act (106-50).
    July 6, 1999--Field Hearing on A Brighter Tomorrow For Our 
Schools: Parents, Businesses and Communities Working Together, 
Anaheim, CA (106-57).
    July 7, 1999--Field Hearing on Reauthorization of the 
Bilingual Education Act McAllen, TX (106-56).
    July 15, 1999--Hearing on Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act--Educating Diverse Populations (106-59).
    July 20, 1999--Hearing on Examining Education Programs 
Benefiting Native American Children (106-60).
    August 3, 1999--Hearing on Drug Abuse Prevention: 
Protecting Our Children (106-65).
    August 12, 1999--Field Hearing on Excellence in Education 
Through Innovative Alternatives Greenville, South Carolina 
(106-66).
    August 13, 1999--Field Hearing on School Safety, Discipline 
and IDEA, Waynesboro, Georgia (106-67).
    August 30, 1999--Field Hearing on Technology in Schools: 
Preparing for the 21st Century, Petaluma, CA (106-69).
    September 1, 1999--Field Hearing on Effective School Safety 
and Drug Prevention Efforts in Our Schools and Communities, New 
Haven, Indiana (106-70).
    September 2, 1999--Field Hearing on Programs Focused on 
Improving Academic Achievement, Producing Quality Teachers, and 
Promoting School Safety, Roswell, GA (106-71).
    September 8, 1999--Field Hearing on Challenges and 
Innovations in Elementary and Secondary Education, Raleigh, NC 
(106-71).

106th Congress, Second Session

    February 2, 2000--Joint Hearing on The Federal Role in K-12 
Mathematics Reform (106-83).
    February 9, 2000--Hearing on Title VI--Providing 
Flexibility for Innovative Education (106-84).
    February 10, 2000--Hearing on Examining the 21st Century 
Community Learning Centers Program (106-85).
    February 15, 2000--Hearing on H.R. 3614, The Emergency 
Commodity Distribution Act of 2000 (106-88).
    March 1, 2000--Hearing on The Role of Character Education 
In America's Schools (106-92).
    March 8, 2000--Hearing on The Role of Technology in 
America's Schools (106-94).
    May 4, 2000--Hearing on Options for the Future of The 
Office of Education Research and Improvement (106-107).
    May 11, 2000--Hearing on Authorization of The National 
Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of 
Educational Progress, and National Assessment Governing Board 
(106-108).
    May 16, 2000--Hearing on Ritalin Use Among Youth: Examining 
the Issues and Concerns (106-109).
    June 27, 2000--Examining The National Environmental 
Education Act (106-113).
    September 5, 2000--Field Hearing on Educating Homeless 
Children, Phoenix, AZ (106-118).

                 III. Markups Held by the Subcommittee


106th Congress, First Session

    April 22, 1999--H.R. 905, ``Missing, Exploited and Runaway 
Children Protection Act'' was ordered favorably reported to the 
Full Committee as amended by voice vote.
    H.R. 1150, ``Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency 
Prevention Act of 1999'' was ordered favorably reported to the 
Full Committee as amended by voice vote.

106th Congress, Second Session

    July 26, 2000--H.R. 4875, ``Scientifically Based Education 
Research, Statistics, Evaluation, and Information Act of 2000'' 
was ordered favorably reported to the Full Committee as amended 
by voice vote.

                      IV. Subcommittee Statistics

Total Number of Bills and Resolutions Referred to Subcommittee....   150
Total Number of Hearings..........................................    37
    Field.........................................................    13
    Joint with Other Committees...................................     1
Total Number of Subcommittee Markup Sessions......................     2
Total Number of Bills Reported From Subcommittee..................     3

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS


                        I. Summary of Activities


  A. COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE OVERSIGHT PLANS FOR THE 
                             106TH CONGRESS

    Under House Rule X 2(d)(1), each standing committee of the 
U.S. House of Representatives is required to formally adopt an 
oversight plan at the beginning of each session of Congress. 
Specifically, Rule X, 2(d)(1) states in part:
    ``Not later than February 15 of the first session of a 
Congress, each standing committee of the House shall, in a 
meeting that is open to the public and with a quorum present, 
adopt its oversight plan for that Congress. Such plan shall be 
submitted simultaneously to the Committee on Government Reform 
and to the Committee on House Administration.''
    Under Rule X of the Rules of the House, the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce (Committee) is vested with 
jurisdiction over issues dealing with students, education, 
workers, and workplace policy, including, but not limited to:
    1. Child Labor.
    2. Gallaudet University and Howard University and 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. Education or labor generally.
    7. Mediation and arbitration of labor disputes.
    8. Regulation or prevention of importation of foreign 
laborers under contract.
    9. Workers' compensation.
    10. Vocational rehabilitation.
    11. Wages and hours of labor.
    12. Welfare of miners.
    13. Work incentive program.
    The Committee is, accordingly, responsible for overseeing 
approximately 24,000 federal employees and more than $125 
billion in annual spending. More importantly, it is charged 
with evaluating whether federal education and workforce 
programs are contributing favorably to our children's 
education, whether we are creating a process of life-long 
learning, and whether we are developing workplace policies that 
encourage the most productive and competitive workplaces in the 
world.
    Pursuant to House Rule X 2(a), the various standing 
committees have general oversight responsibilities as provided 
in paragraph (b) in order to assist the House in its:
    (1) Analysis, appraisal, and evaluation of the application, 
administration, execution, and effectiveness of federal laws, 
and conditions and circumstances that may indicate the 
necessity or desirability of enacting new or additional 
legislation; and
    (2) Formulation, consideration, and enactment of changes in 
federal laws, and of such additional legislation as may be 
necessary or appropriate.
    In order to determine whether laws and programs addressing 
subjects within a committee's jurisdiction are being 
implemented and carried out in accordance with the intent of 
Congress and whether they should be continued, curtailed, or 
eliminated, each standing committee (other than the Committee 
on Appropriations) shall review and study on a continuing basis 
the application, administration, execution, and effectiveness 
of laws and programs addressing subjects within its 
jurisdiction; and the organization and operation of federal 
agencies and entities having responsibilities for the 
administration and execution of laws and programs addressing 
subjects within its jurisdiction.

 B. EDUCATION AT A CROSSROADS REPORT: BRINGING EXCELLENCE TO EDUCATION

1. Background

    Since 1965, the federal government has spent hundreds of 
billions of dollars on educational improvements. Recent 
education statistics on student achievement, however, indicate 
there is little to show for this massive investment. Beginning 
with the 104th Congress and continuing through the 106th 
Congress, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 
(Subcommittee) of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
has conducted a comprehensive Congressional review of the 
federal role in education 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.
    The Subcommittee issued the report Education at a 
Crossroads: What Works and What's Wasted in Education Today, by 
a vote of 5 to 2 on July 17, 1998. The report documented key 
findings from 22 Congressional hearings featuring 237 witnesses 
who testified about what works in education. Four themes 
emerged: parental empowerment and involvement, local control, 
dollars to the classroom, and a focus on basic academics.
    During the 106th Congress, the Subcommittee continued to 
look beyond the crossroads toward states, districts, and 
schools that have emerged as shining examples of excellence 
over the last two decades. It found that the key to success in 
all levels of education is putting student performance first. 
The Subcommittee also worked to ensure that the U.S. Department 
of Education (ED) does not waste tax dollars through financial 
mismanagement, wasteful spending or fraudulent practices.

2. What works and what's wasted in federal education programs

    The Subcommittee's recent efforts have found more evidence 
of the burden federal requirements place on school districts. 
These requirements continue to divert local resources into 
federal programs of unknown effectiveness and require 
compliance with numerous rules that have little to do with 
improving educational outcomes.
    Since 1965, when Washington, D.C. embarked on its first 
major elementary-secondary education initiative, federal policy 
has strongly influenced America's schools. Although education 
is generally considered a state and local responsibility, over 
the years Congress has created hundreds of programs intended to 
address problems in education. Creating a ``program for every 
problem,'' as the first Crossroads report found, begins to add 
up, so much so that there are now more than 760 ``education'' 
and ``education-related'' programs spread across 39 federal 
agencies at a cost of $120 billion a year. The shape of new 
education programs is often determined by political polls and 
focus groups, rather than the actual needs of students and 
teachers.
    These program dollars come with significant strings 
attached. While federal dollars make up only about seven 
percent of America's total budget for K-12 education, the 
Subcommittee has documented that Washington's role is 
significant when it comes to setting state and local 
priorities, and in determining the tenor and content of the 
national conversation about education. Without asking whether 
or not programs produce results, or knowing their impact on 
local needs, Washington each year funds an increasing number of 
education programs instead of focusing additional funds on 
proven programs. According to the Congressional Research 
Service, the number of Congressionally funded programs at ED 
has steadily increased over the last four fiscal years.
    The cumulative effect of hundreds of federally designed 
programs and requirements, many of which are not completely 
grounded in credible research, continues to take its toll at 
the state and local levels. Since the first Crossroads report, 
the Subcommittee has heard witnesses state that many well-
intentioned federal programs provide funding with burdensome 
requirements that have nothing to do with producing results. 
Other witnesses have testified about the burden of the special 
education mandate and the significant resources it requires of 
districts. One superintendent of schools said her district 
currently spends a minimum of three man-days per month creating 
the documentation for just one of many federal fiscal 
requirements. The Subcommittee also found that ED still 
requires more than 38 million hours of paperwork a year--the 
equivalent of 18,000 employees filling out forms for one year.
    Not only are many federal program requirements burdensome, 
but also the manner in which programs are carried out at ED 
wastes taxpayer dollars. The Subcommittee held several hearings 
that focused on poor financial management practices. The 
Subcommittee also documented several other instances of waste, 
fraud, and abuse. For example, a theft ring that involved 
``collaboration'' between outside contractors and ED employees 
operated for at least three years, and stole more than $300,000 
worth of Department of Education electronic equipment, 
including computers, cell phones, VCRs and even a 61" 
television set. The ``theft ring'' also netted from ED more 
than $600,000 in false overtime pay.
    The Subcommittee found that the most innovative and 
effective education reforms are centered on putting student 
performance first. The following are the Subcommittee's 
strongest examples of putting performance first:
    Charter Schools--State charter school laws free schools to 
put the needs of children first by giving them flexibility and 
freedom in managing their schools and staff.
    State ``De-mandated'' Districts--On April 19, 1999, the 
Subcommittee held a hearing in Chicago, Illinois, the site of 
the first ``Education at a Crossroads'' hearing in 1995 and a 
city that ten years ago was generally considered one of the 
worst school districts in the country. In 1996, the state of 
Illinois ``de-mandated'' the city to free it from complex 
mandates and allowed it to implement an aggressive reform plan. 
Since then the city has a record of continuous improvement in 
academic achievement and graduation rates have improved.
    Charter Districts--Florida is experimenting with the 
concept of ``charter districts,'' whereby certain districts are 
granted charter status on an application setting forth certain 
performance goals. In exchange, the districts are freed from 
800 pages of state requirements. The Subcommittee held a 
hearing in Temple Terrace, Florida on March 27, 2000.
    ``The Academic Achievement for All Act'' (H.R. 2300)--The 
Academic Achievement for All Act (``Straight A's'') is similar 
to the concept of charter schools: granting freedom from 
regulations and process requirements in exchange for 
accountability for producing results. Under Straight A's, 
Washington assumes the role of shareholder, rather than the 
Chief Executive Officer (CEO), of the nation's education 
enterprise. Instead of micromanaging the day-to-day uses of 
federal money, Straight A's allows states to manage their 
schools and dollars as they see fit in return for specified 
gains in academic achievement.

3. Recommendations

    Based on the above findings, and building on the findings 
of the first Education at a Crossroads report, the Subcommittee 
recommends that federal education policies empower schools to 
put student performance first. Stagnant achievement and 
widening gaps are often the consequences of failing to put 
student performance first and failing to reward results. 
Education policymakers too often put the primary need of the 
education ``system'' (compliance with its rules and 
requirements) above performance.
    Specifically, to accomplish this goal, e.g., empowering our 
schools by eliminating burdensome federal requirements, and 
waste, fraud, and abuse, the Subcommittee made several policy 
proposals:
    Flexibility and Accountability--To expand flexibility and 
accountability for results, Congress should work to ensure that 
all children can attend a high quality school. Congress should 
also empower school districts to improve teacher quality or 
reduce class size according to their needs; accent performance 
and accountability by enacting the Straight A's Act (H.R. 
2300); empower schools to pay teachers according to their 
performance; and focus the federal role in education 
onimportant goals, such as consolidation and elimination of duplicative 
and ineffective education programs.
    Parental Empowerment--Congress should implement policies 
that ensure that parents can make the best decision about their 
children's education by expanding and protecting charter 
schools, enacting education tax deductions, and encouraging 
school choice.
    High Quality Education--Congress should place a priority on 
raising the achievement level of all students, even the lowest 
performing students, by freeing students from failing schools, 
and fighting illiteracy among disadvantaged students.
    Department and Program Performance--Congress should ensure 
that federal dollars are spent with integrity at ED; continue 
its oversight to ensure that ED meets its goal of receiving a 
clean, independent audit; put into place institutional checks 
and balances to ensure that education research, statistics and 
evaluations are conducted and presented in a rigorous and 
unbiased manner; and work to improve the overall quality of 
ED's financial and internal management in order to reduce 
waste, fraud, and abuse.
    Efficiency and Effectiveness--In order to make the federal 
role in education less burdensome, Congress should eliminate or 
consolidate duplicative programs; increase funding for special 
education; improve evaluation and oversight of federal programs 
to ensure that federal dollars produce results; reform the ED's 
Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) so that 
it serves the needs of teachers and students and produces 
scientifically rigorous findings; and ensure that federal 
research and program evaluation activities employ rigorous 
research methods that produce credible, useful results.

4. Subcommittee report

    The Subcommittee compiled its findings gathered from 
hearings and oversight activities held in 1999 and 2000 and 
issued Education at a Crossroads 2000: The Road to Excellence 
(``Crossroads 2000''). The report examines the underlying 
policies behind success in education at all levels of 
government and contains policy and legislative recommendations 
to improve the federal role in education. ``Crossroads 2000'' 
was publicly released at a press conference on October 11, 
2000.

               c. general education oversight activities

1. Release of 1998 NAEP reading scores

    On February 10, 1999, it was Vice President Al Gore, not 
the Commissioner of Education Statistics, who released the 1998 
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading 
result scores to the public at a press conference. This was the 
first time that any official higher than an ED Secretary had 
taken part in a NAEP release and constituted a violation of the 
longstanding National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) policy 
designed to insulate the release of education results from 
political ``spin.'' Test scores from 1992 were left out of the 
Vice President's presentation, giving the appearance that 
scores had increased since 1994, although those scores were 
only returning to 1992 levels. According to NAGB's Chairman, 
``the format, tone, and substance of that event was not 
consistent with the principle of an independent, nonpartisan 
release of * * * data.'' Because of concerns about the manner 
in which the 1998 NAEP reading test results were released, and 
the apparent violation of NAGB policy, the Subcommittee 
investigated the matter and held a hearing on May 27, 1999.
    Prior to the hearing, the Subcommittee released e-mail 
communications between ED and the Office of the Vice President 
that strongly suggested that an effort had been made by that 
Office to present the statistics in a manner most favorable to 
the Administration's policies.
    At the Subcommittee hearing, the NAGB Chairman and the 
Commissioner of Education Statistics described how NAGB's 
policy of independence had been violated and described how NAGB 
could be given more independence to prevent the Administration 
from being able to make such announcements in the future. This 
independence, the NAGB Chairman asserted, would ensure that the 
organization release information in an impartial manner.
    Representative Michael Castle (R-DE), Chairman of the Early 
Childhood, Youth and Families Subcommittee, included 
legislative language in H.R. 4875, the ``Scientifically Based 
Education Research, Statistics, Evaluation, and Information Act 
of 2000,'' that increased NAGB's independence to prevent such 
political subterfuge from happening again.

2. Study of Texas achievement

    On March 28, 2000, The Baltimore Sun reported that it had 
received a copy of a study that questioned the validity of 
student achievement gains in Texas. The newspaper reported that 
the study had been ``drafted by a senior researcher at the 
federal Education Department,'' but had been ``written under a 
pseudonym and ha[d] not been made public.'' The alleged 
existence of this study raised serious concerns about the use 
of ED resources for political purposes. Consequently, the 
Subcommittee requested that ED determine who had written the 
study and whether ED resources had been used in the endeavor. 
In addition, the Subcommittee asked ED to produce all internal 
communications within ED concerning the study.
    Based on the information ED provided to the Subcommittee, 
the Subcommittee determined that an employee of that agency 
had, in fact, authored the study under a pseudonym. That ED 
employee, however, contended that he had prepared the study on 
his own time, not at taxpayer expense. The e-mail submissions 
obtained by the Subcommittee were not sufficient for it to 
determine whether or not any ED resources had been used to 
write the report. Based upon the information obtained from ED, 
the Subcommittee was also unable to determine whether the 
author had been inappropriately directed to write the report in 
the first instance.

3. Redesigned discretionary grants process

    The Education at a Crossroads report contained a passage 
that described how, in 1993, the Vice President's National 
Performance Review found that ED's discretionary grant approval 
process lasted 26 weeks and took 487 steps from start to 
finish. In 1996, the Department implemented a plan to begin 
``streamlining'' the grant review process to 20 weeks and 216 
steps.
    Reacting to this announcement, the Subcommittee submitted a 
letter to ED in July 1998, to find out whether the redesigned 
discretionary grant approval process had been successfully 
implemented and whether it could verify that applications were 
being processed more quickly and efficiently. While ED reported 
that many of its streamlining goals had been met, it did not 
provide any substantive documentation to prove that the 
implementation was successful in making the process more 
efficient.
    Since enhanced efficiency was the only legitimate goal of 
the streamlining effort, in August 1999, Subcommittee Chairman 
Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) requested the General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to look into ED's management of discretionary grants to 
determine whether the approval process had, in fact, become 
more efficient. Mr. Hoekstra also requested that the GAO study 
how grants were awarded, how the peer review process was used, 
the characteristics of grant recipients, and the costs of 
applying for a grant.
    The GAO reported to the Subcommittee findings that ED had 
streamlined many aspects of its grant application process. The 
GAO also made several recommendations on how ED could improve 
internal controls to ensure fairness in the grant issuance 
process. For example, among those cases the GAO reviewed, the 
agency found wide scoring variations and few controls in place 
to ensure that these variations did not impede awarding grants 
to the most qualified recipients. Although ED had initially 
indicated that it would not be able to verify the number of 
steps it would take to approve a grant application, immediately 
before the GAO's report went to print ED provided that 
information. The Department calculated that the approval 
process for grant applications had been reduced to a total of 
192 steps. Due to the last minute nature of this finding, 
however, the GAO was not able to verify that number.
    In April 2000, ED issued proposed discretionary grant 
regulations that would allow grants to be awarded using 
``quality band'' ratings that are qualitative in nature instead 
of numerical scores. On May 18, 2000, Chairman Goodling and 
Subcommittee Chairman Hoekstra sent a letter to ED Secretary 
Richard Riley expressing their concern over the proposed 
changes. Without numerical scores to justify funding certain 
grants over others, the Committee opined, the fairness of the 
process could be called into question. As of the date of this 
writing, ED has not taken further action on finalizing the 
proposed changes in regulations.

4. Evaluation of Part A of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
        Education Act

    In 1994, anticipating the need for student performance data 
to inform the next reauthorization process, Congress authorized 
$9 million for an evaluation of the impact of its 1994 Title I 
amendments. The Committee was not satisfied with the progress 
of an ongoing Longitudinal Evaluation of School Change and 
Performance (LESCP) because it would have failed to produce a 
report in time for the reauthorization of Title I, and did not 
appear to address the effectiveness of Title I in reducing the 
achievement gap. Consequently, on April 27, 2000, the Committee 
requested the GAO to examine the LESCP to determine the extent 
that the evaluation had produced relevant, qualitative, and 
timely data for Congress to use in its reauthorization process. 
The Committee also asked the GAO to evaluate how the LESCP 
process compared to the ``Prospects'' evaluation of Chapter 1 
and the information it provided for the 1993-1994 
reauthorization of Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
    The GAO study found that because the LESCP was using a 
smaller, non-representative sample, that it suffered design 
limitations that would ``restrict its ability to fully satisfy 
any of the three potential purposes * * * envisioned by [the 
Department of] Education, contractors and panel members.'' The 
GAO also found that the evaluation suffered from a lack of 
clarity in purpose and in the questions that were used to 
obtain information. The Committee believes that these 
limitations will restrict the researchers' ability to draw 
strong conclusions, especially about Title I or standards 
based-reform. Consequently, the Committee considered it 
unlikely that this study, after more than four years and 
millions of dollars, would provide any conclusive data as to 
whether or not Title I is helping to reduce the achievement gap 
between disadvantaged students and non-disadvantaged students.

5. Government Performance and Results Act

    During the 106th Congress, Subcommittee staff met regularly 
with ED representatives to oversee their implementation of the 
Government Performance and Results Act (Results Act). The 
Subcommittee specifically monitored ED's Performance Report to 
ensure that indicators were accurately measured, and that 
federal education programs were producing valid and reliable 
data demonstrating the effectiveness of these programs.

6. Waste, Fraud and Abuse at ED

    During the 106th Congress, Subcommittee Chairman Peter 
Hoekstra conducted three hearings on financial mismanagement at 
ED. Near the end of the session, Chairman Bill Goodling 
conducted a full committee hearing also addressing this topic.
    These hearings linked financial mismanagement at ED to a 
series of related abuses occurring at the agency--several 
thefts of its funds and equipment, hundreds of millions of 
dollars of improper payments made, tens of millions of dollars 
worth of improper loan forgiveness granted to individuals 
falsely claiming to be dead or disabled, erroneous award 
notification letters sent to 39 students, the misprinting of 
three million financial aid forms, and the issuance of more 
than $150 million in duplicate payments to agency grantees and 
contractors.
    The Oversight Subcommittee probed into each of these abuses 
individually. Chairman Hoekstra met with Justice Department 
officials and representatives of the Office of the Inspector 
General to discuss the thefts and to determine how they related 
to the internal financial control weaknesses at ED. Rep. 
Hoekstra submitted a bill in the House, H.R. 4661, on June 14, 
2000, that would effectively terminate about $200 million 
dollars each year in Pell Grant fraud by permitting the 
Internal Revenue Service to verify income information reported 
on federal student financial aid forms. Chairman Goodling and 
Rep. Hoekstra sent a letter to ED that helped persuade the 
agency to award Jacob Javits fellowships to the 39 students to 
which it had erroneously mailed award notification letters. In 
response to a letter from Rep. Hoekstra, ED was forced to 
reveal that the misprinting of financial aid forms cost the 
agency $700,000. Letters from the Oversight Subcommittee also 
pressured ED to better monitor duplicate payments and to stick 
to a timeline in implementing a much-needed new accounting 
system.
    While investigating these abuses as they arose, the 
Oversight Subcommittee delved deeply into the core problem--lax 
financial management at ED. Proof of this was the agency's 
inability to get a clean audit.
    The department was the last federal agency to complete an 
annual audit for FY 1998. The report was released in November 
1999, eight months after the March deadline. Even with the 
extra time, auditors issued a disclaimer on the agency's books, 
the lowest grade possible on an audit. On December 1, 1999, the 
Oversight Subcommittee held a hearing on the audit report, 
which disclosed aberrations that included a $6 billion 
discrepancy in the financial statements, a recorded balance of 
$800 million on a single student loan, and a ``grantback'' 
account containing approximately $700 million dollars, only a 
few percent of which was actual grantback funds. The account 
was actually used as a ``suspense'' account where ED stored 
monies the appropriate destination of which was not yet known. 
Chairman Hoekstra sent a letter to the General Accounting 
Office (GAO) requesting that it separately audit the grantback 
account, to determine if funds were spent appropriately and in 
accordance with all applicable laws.
    Due to pressure from the Subcommittee, the FY 1999 audit 
report for ED was issued on the March 1, 2000 deadline. That 
same day, the Subcommittee held a hearing to discuss the 
results. An Ernst & Young official testified that the auditing 
firm had issued one disclaimer and four qualified opinions on 
ED's five sets of financial statements. This was still not a 
clean opinion, but it marked a small improvement from the FY 
1998 report. At the hearing, however, a GAO official reported 
that ED had not yet been able to prove that transactions 
involving the grantback account were appropriate and lawful.
    Due to the inability of ED to receive a clean audit 
opinion, and due to a Justice Department investigation of a 
computer theft ring involving several ED employees and outside 
contractors, Chairman Hoekstra introduced, on March 23, 2000, 
H.R. 4079, calling for a fraud audit of selected ED financial 
accounts, to be performed by GAO. The fraud audit would differ 
from the annual agency-wide audit in that the fraud audit would 
actually attempt to find instances of fraudulent or improper 
payments, instead of highlighting areas of vulnerability, as 
the annual audit does.
    At a May 25, 2000 markup, the full Education and the 
Workforce Committee approved H.R. 4079 by voice vote. On June 
13, the bill passed the House by a vote of 380-19, with one 
member voting present. On June 29, Senator Tim Hutchinson (R-
AR) introduced a parallel bill, S. 2829, in the Senate. S. 2829 
was reported by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and 
Pensions Committee on October 2, 2000. The full Senate, 
however, did not vote on either H.R. 4079 or S. 2829 during the 
106th Congress.
    Regardless of the eventual fate of H.R. 4079, GAO has begun 
work on a fraud audit of ED, pursuant to a separate letter 
request filed by Rep. Hoekstra. Thus, even if the bill never 
becomes law, GAO will still proceed with the fraud audit. The 
only difference is that it will continue to treat the 
investigation as a request from an individual member, as 
opposed to a legislative mandate from the entire Congress.
    In August 2000, GAO issued an official report concerning 
the grantback account. It found that ED lacked the records to 
verify the appropriateness of about 40% of sampled transactions 
involving the grantback account. Due to this lack of audit 
trails, GAO concluded, there was no way it could fully audit 
the activity in the account. In other words, GAO could not 
certify that ED appropriately handled the $700 million.
    On September 19, 2000, the Oversight Subcommittee held 
another hearing on financial management abuses, focusing this 
time on a $1.9 million theft of Impact Aid funds being 
investigated by the Justice Department. Court papers filed by 
Justice had alleged that grant monies intended for two South 
Dakota school districts had been wired to thieves' bank 
accounts on March 31 and April 1, 2000. The thieves had 
submitted false direct deposit forms to ED, substituting their 
own bank account numbers for those of the South Dakota school 
districts. At the hearing, members discussed a litany of abuses 
that had occurred at ED during the past few years. Rep. Charlie 
Norwood (R-GA) asked ED Inspector General Lorraine Lewis if she 
knew how much money ED lost to waste, fraud and abuse each 
year. She said she did not know.
    Oversight Subcommittee members were not satisfied with that 
response, or with other answers they had heard from ED 
officials at previous hearings on financial management. They 
wanted Education Secretary Richard Riley himself to address 
these issues.
    Therefore, Chairman Goodling invited Secretary Riley to 
testify on October 25, 2000 before the full Committee at a 
hearing on, ``Waste, Fraud and Program Implementation at the 
U.S. Department of Education.'' Aside from reviewing ED's 
financial problems, the hearing was held to allow Secretary 
Riley to address recent questions raised concerning his 
official travel, as well as questions concerning the 
expenditure of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
(IDEA) funds by the states. The Washington Post first raised 
the travel issue when it ran a story reporting that Riley made 
thirteen trips to the home districts of House Democrats to make 
joint appearances with members between February and August 
2000, and that 10 of these 13 appearances were made with 
vulnerable incumbents preparing for close re-election bids in 
November. A letter subsequently sent to ED by Chairman Goodling 
and Rep. Hoekstra enabled the Committee to confirm the Post 
story and gather additional information on the Secretary's 
travel.
    At the October 25 hearing, Secretary Riley was the only 
official witness, but he was accompanied on the witness stand 
by three other high-ranking agency officials: Deputy Secretary 
Frank Holleman, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and 
Congressional Affairs Scott Fleming, and Assistant Secretary 
for the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services 
Judith Heumann. Riley reported that ED did not yet know exactly 
how the IDEA funds were being spent, and he asserted that the 
Impact Aid theft was one of only a few isolated instances of 
theft at the agency. When pressed on the subject of his 
official travel to the districts of House Democrats, Riley 
assured members that partisan politics were not a consideration 
in his travel plans.

7. AmeriCorps

    During the 106th Congress, the Oversight and Investigations 
Subcommittee held three hearings on financial mismanagement of 
the Corporation for National Service (CNS). CNS is the umbrella 
organization that encompasses the AmeriCorps program.
    CNS has never received a clean audit since it was created 
by President Clinton in 1993. It did not even undergo an audit 
until FY 1997, when it received a partial audit. The FY 1998 
audit of CNS--the agency's first full audit--was the subject of 
a May 5, 1999 Subcommittee hearing held by Chairman Hoekstra. 
At the hearing, a KPMG Peat Marwick official and the CNS 
Inspector General reported that auditors issued a disclaimer 
(the worst possible rating) on three out of four sets of 
financial statements prepared by CNS. Auditors also identified 
eight material weaknesses in the Corporation's internal 
financial controls.
    A few months later, on September 14, 1999, the Oversight 
Subcommittee held another hearing on, ``The Failed Promise of 
the Corporation for National Service.'' The hearing featured 
testimony from two individuals, a high school teacher and a 
student, who had participated in a Terre Haute, Indiana 
AmeriCorps program in which students earned service hour credit 
for attending church missions, playing varsity sports and doing 
paid work such as lifeguarding and babysitting. The AmeriCorps 
program directors were responsible for misinforming the 
teachers and students about the service requirements of the 
program. Indiana state auditors questioned $300,000 of program 
expenditures as inappropriate, and the students' education 
awards were suspended while further investigation took place. 
The Inspector General of CNS, Luise Jordan, testified at the 
hearing that the state of Indiana's AmeriCorps commission, 
which ran the programs, was culpable, but national CNS/
AmeriCorps officials were also responsible, because they did 
not exercise proper oversight of the state commission.
    Shortly before the hearing took place, on March 29, 2000, a 
proposal by Rep. Hoekstra to reallocate $1 million to finance 
audits of the AmeriCorps state commissions was approved by 
voice vote as a floor amendment to the FY 2000 Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations bill. When the bill became law, the 
$1 million was transferred from the CNS National Service Trust 
Fund to the Office of the Inspector General, which is currently 
conducting the state commission audits as part of a multi-year 
project.
    On April 4, 2000, the Oversight Subcommittee held a hearing 
to discuss the results of the FY 1999 audit of CNS. The audit 
report issued a disclaimer on two out of three sets of 
financial statements, and reported five material weaknesses. 
Auditors identified a $10.5 million unexpended appropriations 
balance that could not be explained by the Corporation. The FY 
1999 audit was significant in that it was the last annual audit 
of CNS to be completed during the Clinton Administration. When 
he introduced the legislation creating CNS/AmeriCorps, 
President Clinton vowed that the Corporation would operate like 
a private venture capital outfit, not like a typical government 
bureaucracy. And yet, as Chairman Hoekstra remarked upon in his 
opening statement, during Clinton's entire two-term presidency, 
CNS never once received a clean audit.
    During the 106th Congress, the Subcommittee also sought to 
update statistics on the cost-per member of the AmeriCorps 
program. Back in 1995, GAO had determined that AmeriCorps cost 
more than $30,000 when programs were run by federal agencies, 
and $25,797 when run by non-federal entities, such as local 
nonprofit organizations. Congress subsequently barred federal 
agencies from receiving AmeriCorps grants. And several years 
later, CNS officials began to claim that the cost-per-member 
had been greatly reduced. Therefore, on February 25, 1999, 
Chairman Hoekstra wrote a letter to GAO requesting that it 
update the 1995 study, using the most recent available data.
    The results reported by GAO were that, for the 1998-99 
program year, AmeriCorps cost $23,574 per member. But GAO also 
noted that the apparent $2,223 per member reduction in cost was 
almost entirely due to the fact that CNS had ``re-estimated'' 
the value of the education award, reducing it by $2,179 per 
member. CNS claims it made the re-estimate after learning that 
many AmeriCorps members do not either do not complete a full 
term, or complete their term but never use their education 
award.
    The bottom line of the GAO study was that it showed not 
only that AmeriCorps had not significantly reduced the cost per 
member of the program, but it also had a significant drop out 
rate and a significant number of graduates never use the 
education award. These findings helped to bolster the claim of 
many members of the Committee that AmeriCorps is a less 
effective tool of expanding access to higher education than 
previously existing programs, such as federal college work-
study. While the work-study program was reauthorized by the 
Committee as part of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998, 
the Committee has not considered legislation that would 
reauthorize CNS/AmeriCorps.

8. National Endowment for the Arts

    During the 106th Congress, the Oversight Subcommittee 
continued to closely monitor the grant making activities of the 
National Endowment for the Arts (NEA).
    Soon after the end of each fiscal year, Rep. Hoekstra wrote 
a letter to the NEA requesting a breakdown of the distribution 
of direct grants. Under statute, NEA is required to send 40% of 
its grant monies directly to state arts commissions, but the 
other 60% is allocated according to the agency's discretion.
    The Oversight Subcommittee learned that, during both FY 
1998 and FY 1999, six major cities received approximately one-
third of all NEA direct grant funding. These cities are New 
York, the District of Columbia, Boston, San Francisco, 
Minneapolis-St. Paul and Baltimore. In FY 1998, 167 
congressional districts received no grants from the NEA, and in 
FY 1999 there were 141 congressional districts that received 
none. This information was posted on the Committee web site and 
distributed to members via Dear Colleague letters.
    The Oversight Subcommittee also probed into several 
instances where the NEA appeared to be funding pornographic 
art. Chairman Hoekstra sent a letter to NEA Chairman Bill Ivey 
when the Subcommittee learned that the NEA had decided to fund 
Terrence McNally's play, ``Corpus Christi'', in which Jesus 
Christ is portrayed as a homeless, drug-addicted derelict. On 
September 29, 1999, Chairman Hoekstra sent a letter to Chairman 
Ivey when the Subcommittee learned that the NEA had awarded two 
grants during FY 1999 to the Brooklyn Museum of Art, which was 
inthe process of staging an exhibit called, ``Sensation'' 
featuring disturbing ``art'' such as a portrait of the Virgin Mary 
stained with elephant dung and covered with pictures cut out from 
pornographic magazines. In advertising the exhibition, the Museum 
itself acknowledged the nature of the artwork being put on display when 
it issued a requirement that adults accompany children under the age of 
seventeen.
    On October 1, 1999, Rep. John Sweeney (R-NY) introduced H. 
Con. Res. 191, expressing the sense of Congress that the 
Brooklyn Museum of Art should not receive Federal funds unless 
it cancelled its exhibit featuring works of a sacrilegious 
nature. On October 4, 1999, the resolution was taken up on the 
House floor under suspension of the rules. It was passed by 
voice vote.

9. OCR testing guidance

    In May 1999, a controversial document draft being prepared 
by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in the U.S. Department of 
Education (ED) became widely available. This document, a 
``Resource Guide'' with the working title ``Nondiscrimination 
in High-Stakes Testing,'' was developed over several years 
within OCR. The Resource Guide has been criticized as a thinly 
veiled attack on the use of standardized tests by schools and 
colleges.
    While purporting to merely ``Describe existing legal and 
test measurement principles,'' the Resource Guide actually 
presented a highly controversial interpretation of the relevant 
case law and psychometric principles. It highlighted the 
suspect controversial theory of ``disparate impact'' under 
which a test is considered unfair if certain group members do 
not score as well as others, and face consequences as a result. 
There are group discrepancies on virtually every test, and the 
Resource Guide did not specify what size discrepancy would be 
considered unacceptable. Finally, it put the burden on schools 
to emphasize that a test was both ``educationally necessary'' 
and ``valid'' and that there existed no ``practicable 
alternative form of assessment'' that would have less of a 
disparate impact that could be used instead. Schools, 
effectively, would be required to prove a negative.
    The issuance of the Resource Guide appeared to directly 
contradict the Clinton Administration's avowed commitment to 
support more state-level testing of elementary and secondary 
school students. Indeed, Abigail Thernstrom, a member of the 
Massachusetts state board of education, testified to the U.S. 
Commission on Civil Rights that the Resource Guide could have a 
chilling effect on state officials engaged in the process of 
developing new high-stakes exams.
    This point was emphasized by Oversight Subcommittee 
Chairman Pete Hoekstra at a hearing he convened to discuss the 
Resource Guide on June 22, 1999. In his opening statement, Rep. 
Hoekstra noted that several states, including Texas, Virginia 
and Massachusetts, ``are in the midst of instituting new high-
stakes exams that will identify gaps in educational 
achievement. When tests identify performance gaps between 
minority students and others, these gaps can be addressed.'' At 
the hearing, Linda Chavez, a former Reagan Administration 
official and head of the Center for Equal Opportunity, 
testified at the hearing and raised many questions about the 
Resource Guide. In response, OCR's Assistant Secretary, Norma 
Cantu, told members that the Resource Guide would undergo 
further revision and that their concerns would be taken into 
account in future versions of the document.
    A second version of the Resource Guide was published in the 
Federal Register on July 6, 1999 under the title, ``The Use of 
Tests When Making High-Stakes Decisions for Students.''
    On August 7, 2000, Chairman Goodling and Rep. Hoekstra sent 
a letter to OCR contending that the Resource Guide, even in its 
revised form, contradicted the Clinton Administration's stated 
priority of increasing accountability in the schools. The 
letter stated that--if the Resource Guide was to be 
disseminated by OCR--the document should contain a disclaimer 
on the first page stating that the guide, ``does not constitute 
a rule or regulation, does not impose any new legal 
requirements upon school districts or schools, and represents 
only one interpretation of the relevant case law--that of ED.''
    An August 25, 2000 reply letter from Norma Cantu promised, 
``to add appropriate language at the front of the guide 
regarding its scope and purpose.'' As the 107th Congressional 
Session drew to a close, OCR had not yet issued a final version 
of the Resource Guide.

          d. occupational safety and health related oversight

1. Investigation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's 
        Use of Letters of Interpretation to Implement Enforcement 
        Policy Changes: Enforcement Actions in the Personal Residences 
        of Employees Who Work at Home

            a. Background
    In late November 1999, the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA) issued a letter of interpretation 
responding to a Texas employer's question about whether 
employers who allowed their employees to work at home would be 
held responsible for all safety and health violations that 
occurred at the employee's personal residence. Letters of 
interpretation are documents with legal significance that OSHA 
issues, to clarify ambiguities in existing policy. Letters of 
interpretation are placed on the agency's website to notify all 
employers of these policy clarifications.
    In providing an answer to this Texas employer, OSHA 
specifically held that ``the (Occupational Safety and Health) 
Act applies to work performed by an employee in any workplace 
within the United States, including a workplace located in the 
employee's home.'' The letter also stated that employers must 
``ensure that employees are not exposed to reasonably 
foreseeable hazards created by their at-home employment.'' The 
agency further stated, ``Ensuring safe and healthful working 
conditions for the employee should be a pre-condition for any 
home-based work.''
    Following this OSHA release of interpretation of law, the 
regulated community of employers questioned whether OSHA's 
action represented a significant expansion of the law rather 
than a clarification of existing law. Before the release of the 
November 1999 letter of interpretation, the guidance available 
from OSHA to employers on the ``work-at-home'' issue was found 
in an October 1993 letter of interpretation. In that October 
1993 letter, OSHA specifically ``reserved judgment at (that) 
time as to the extent of OSHA coverage for other conditions 
found in thehome workplace.'' While OSHA's 1993 policy guidance 
seemed to indicate that an employer would be responsible to assure safe 
working conditions in regards to ``materials, equipment and methods 
provided or required by the employer,'' the perceived expansion existed 
in the category of ``other conditions'' which OSHA suggested would be 
clarified at a later date.
    At issue was whether the November 1999 letter of 
interpretation expanded an employer's potential liability by no 
longer limiting the possibility of receiving a citation to 
those items and circumstances over which the employer exercised 
control. Employers questioned whether OSHA intended to extend 
the scope of that liability to all potentially hazardous 
conditions (including those that were not under the direct 
control of an employer), to arguably entail a very significant 
and meaningful expansion of OSHA's enforcement authority.
    The debate between OSHA and the regulated community over 
the scope of this area of enforcement policy came to a head on 
January 4, 2000, when the Washington Post quoted OSHA Assistant 
Secretary Charles Jeffress with regard to this policy 
controversy; ``[I]f an employer is allowing it to happen, it is 
covered (under the Act).'' The same article quoted the AFL-
CIO's health and safety director; ``(the policy interpretation 
in question) makes sense, employers have to provide employees a 
workplace free from hazards.'' Following these statements, OSHA 
demonstrated an unwillingness to provide further clarity (e.g., 
OSHA allowed the existing policy interpretation to stand 
without change).
    This condition of uncertainty in the regulated community 
led several Members of Congress to demand an immediate 
clarification of OSHA's policy. Representatives Frank Wolf, 
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on 
Transportation, and Subcommittee chairman Hoekstra joined, 
other Members of Congress to argue that there was need for 
immediate clarification because the statement of policy put 
forward in OSHA's November 1999 letter of interpretation had 
caused employers to question whether their decisions to utilize 
new forms of work, such as ``telework'' (also known as 
``telecommuting''), should stand in light of the potential, 
uncontrollable liabilities that these situations could create. 
Mr. Wolf noted that what had been termed a clarification of 
policy was, in fact, at odds with many of the efforts underway 
by states and local communities to reduce traffic congestion 
through the use of alternative forms of work. Mr. Hoekstra also 
stated his belief that intelligent government policy must 
complement rather than conflict with the changes produced by 
technological advance. To ignore those inconsistencies, 
Hoekstra noted, would have a significant impact on economic 
growth as well as an immediate impact on current attempts to 
produce a better balance between work and family time. The 
Members who had commented were uniform in their belief that 
without clarification this OSHA policy would create a 
disincentive for employers to permit employees to work at home.
    The controversy intensified in the following days, with a 
significant number of business leaders and employees concerned 
that their employers would revoke their work-at-home privileges 
adding their voices to the call for an immediate policy 
clarification. In response, on January 5, 2000, the U.S. 
Department of Labor (DOL) Secretary, Alexis M. Herman (DOL 
Secretary) formally announced that OSHA had ``caused widespread 
confusion and unintended consequences'' in issuing the policy 
interpretation on work at home ``and therefore, OSHA is 
withdrawing the letter.''
    The DOL's official withdrawal of the letter was not 
accompanied by further clarification concerning whether or not 
the DOL had denounced the policy interpretation at issue. 
Accordingly, the Subcommittee immediately initiated 
communication with the agency in a letter dated January 6, 
2000, to inform the agency that standing alone, the withdrawal 
of the letter was totally inadequate to clarify the uncertainty 
that had been generated by the DOL's action. The Subcommittee 
also informed the DOL that the withdrawal of the letter would 
do little to provide assurance to employers that their 
potential liability did not include working conditions in an 
employee's home over which they could exercise no control. The 
letter brought to DOL's attention the fact that a significant 
number of employers shared the Subcommittee's opinion, and 
informed the DOL that the consequence of that opinion would be 
a reluctance to use new forms of work, such as telework.
    The Subcommittee further instructed the DOL that the 
Subcommittee's Members uniformly believed this act of 
clarification could not be delayed pending a ``national 
dialog'' between the Administration and its chosen 
representatives from the business community, as the DOL 
Secretary had suggested. In order to promote an immediate 
dialog with the full participation of Congress, the 
Subcommittee announced that it would conduct a hearing on the 
matter at its first available opportunity. The stated goal of 
the hearing, the Subcommittee publicly announced, was to gather 
information to permit Congress to prepare a legislative 
solution for OSHA's lack of definitive policy guidance, should 
the DOL continue its refrain from issuing appropriate guidance.
    To further its goal of obtaining immediate understanding of 
the facts necessary for Congress to fill this policy void, in a 
letter dated January 7, 2000, the Subcommittee requested 
specific documents concerning OSHA's policy. Because of the 
need for urgency in this matter, the DOL was requested to 
produce these documents no later than January 21, 2000. On that 
day, the DOL's Office of the Solicitor of Labor formally 
responded to the Subcommittee's request for production of 
documents with what proved to be a very limited and incomplete 
production. Writing for the DOL, Deputy Solicitor Sally Paxton 
wrote, ``[I]n view of the compressed time schedule for 
production of documents to your Subcommittee, we are searching 
the Department's national office for documents * * * and intend 
to supplement this response shortly.'' A second production of 
the requested documents, still incomplete, was delivered to the 
Subcommittee on January 25, 2000.
    The Subcommittee found the DOL's reluctance to provide 
documents on a timely basis confusing in light of its 
communication of the urgency of the matter and the fact that 
the Subcommittee had since scheduled a hearing to occur on 
January 26, 2000. The Subcommittee also found the DOL's refusal 
to produce a summoned witness, Richard Fairfax, Director of 
OSHA's Directorate of Compliance Programs, as counter-
productive to its efforts to understand the DOL's rationale for 
the proposed letter of interpretation. This refusal to permit 
Mr. Fairfax to testify was particularly confusing in light of 
the DOL's response to the Subcommittee's questions concerning 
why it had released the November 1999 letter of interpretation, 
when it should have been clear that the letter would create 
controversy. The DOL's senior leadership had publicly stated 
that the November 1999 ``letter of interpretation'' was issued 
without the knowledge of senior-most managers. Both OSHA's 
Assistant Secretary and the DOL Secretarycontended that because 
of a ``mix-up'' the letter of interpretation had been issued without 
formal review by these managers and without formal approval. Mr. 
Fairfax, as the Directorate of this OSHA program division, could have 
easily confirmed this mix-up and identified the procedural problems 
that had been omitted in the clearance process.
            b. OSHA's document production
    The Subcommittee's goal in securing documents from OSHA 
(regarding the November 1999 letter of interpretation) was 
twofold: (1) to develop an understanding of the facts that 
predicated the DOL's decision to issue this policy; and (2) to 
develop an understanding of how this particular policy decision 
fit into the agency's overall statutory mandate for ensuring 
workplace safety and health.
    To secure this necessary information, the Subcommittee 
asked the DOL for ``any and all records regarding any 
communication between any employees or officials of the 
Department (of Labor) and any other person, organization, or 
entity, including but not limited to correspondence, 
facsimiles, or electronic mail generated over the period 1992 
to present, relating to the application of the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act to work at an employee's home.'' The 
Subcommittee selected the time period ``1992 to present'' to 
include the period immediately preceding the former ``letter of 
interpretation,'' dated in 1992, through the issuance of the 
DOL's November 1999 letter of interpretation. In sum, the 
Subcommittee believed that these documents would provide a 
comprehensive policy background that would detail the back-and-
forth deliberations inherent in the policymaking process and, 
accordingly, adequately explain why certain decisions were 
made.
    The DOL produced some documents on January 24, 2000, a 
Monday. That production of documents was faced with a letter 
dated January 21, 2000, a Friday; however, the documents had 
not been delivered by 7:15 p.m. on that date. Despite the 
delay, the Subcommittee's review of the documents quickly 
revealed that the DOL had failed to fully produce the requested 
documents. Addressing this failure, the DOL stated that a 
``compressed timeframe'' for production had rendered it unable 
to comply and that the Subcommittee's staff had agreed to a 
partial production, a fact with which Subcommittee staff 
disagreed. In addition, the DOL contended that some documents 
could not be provided because they were subject to an 
unidentified ``privilege.''
    The Subcommittee went forward with its hearing on January 
28, 2000 (the hearing was postponed for one day due to 
weather). On February 2, 2000, the Subcommittee responded to 
the DOL's letter of January 21, 2000, informing the DOL that it 
would ``not recognize privileges unidentified in writing and 
unsupported by legal authority.'' Moreover, the Subcommittee 
expected the terms in its communications to be interpreted 
under the ``clear meaning'' of those terms. Accordingly, the 
DOL was to fully produce the requested documents no later than 
February 11, 2000 (this, in effect, extended the Department's 
deadline by three weeks).
    On February 9, 2000, Deputy DOL Secretary Edward Montgomery 
phoned Subcommittee Chairman Hoekstra to request an extension 
of time for the referenced production of documents. In 
addition, Dr. Montgomery requested that the Subcommittee exempt 
certain classifications of documents from the scope of its 
request. In addition, Dr. Montgomery, again, argued that the 
DOL should not be forced to produce documents that, in his 
opinion, were subject to an unidentified claim of privilege.
    The next day, on February 10, 2000, the Subcommittee 
received a letter from the DOL that memorialized the same 
requests that had been made by phone the day before. The letter 
noted that Chairman Hoekstra had stated that he would consider 
Dr. Montgomery's requests if they were made in writing. The 
next day, the Subcommittee responded to Dr. Montgomery's 
requests, stating (1) in light of the time that had passed, 
that the Subcommittee would not extend the deadline for the 
DOL's production; (2) that the Subcommittee would neither 
recognize nor rule on any assertion of privilege that was not 
identified and fully specified in an accompanying document log; 
and (3) that the Subcommittee granted a request for limitation 
in scope by narrowing the scope of documents that the 
Subcommittee requested to exclude all relevant communications 
below the level of ``regional office.''
            c. January 28, 2000 hearing
    At the January 28, 2000 Subcommittee hearing, Assistant 
Secretary Jeffress acknowledged that OSHA's November 1999 
letter of interpretation had led to confusion. To correct that, 
and to provide certainty to employers about OSHA's policy, Mr. 
Jeffress stated that he and the Secretary of Labor had agreed 
that the Occupational Safety and Health Act ``does not apply to 
an employee's house or furnishings.'' Mr. Jeffress also stated 
that OSHA would ``not hold employees liable for work activities 
in an employee's home offices'' and that the agency ``will not 
inspect home offices (nor) expects employers to inspect home 
offices.'' He noted, however, that employers would still be 
expected to keep records of work-related injuries and illnesses 
including those occurring in the employee's home, and that 
``where work other than office work is performed at home, such 
as manufacturing operations, (that) employers are responsible 
for hazardous materials, equipment, or work processes which 
they provide or require to be used in a employee's home.'' Mr. 
Jeffress added that if OSHA were to ever conduct inspections of 
hazardous workplaces found in an employee's home, such as home 
manufacturing, that it would do so only ``when OSHA receives a 
complaint or referral'' and not in cases of a ``programmed, 
administrative inspection.'' Mr. Jeffress then provided 
examples of what OSHA would consider hazardous home 
manufacturing operations.
    Mr. Fairfax appeared on the same panel with Mr. Jeffress. 
While the Subcommittee had agreed that Mr. Fairfax would not be 
required to make a formal statement, Mr. Fairfax was present 
for the purpose of addressing any of the Subcommittee's 
questions. During such questioning, Mr. Jeffress reiterated his 
previous statement that the November 1999 letter of 
interpretation had been issued without his, or one of his 
assistants, having seen it and/or approved it. Mr. Jeffress 
agreed that a situation wherein policy determinations could be 
issued without formal approval was unacceptable. Mr. Jeffress 
also testified that he would institute changes within OSHA's 
structure to institute accountability in this area and ensure 
that a similar issuance without official approval would not 
occur again.
    During questioning, Mr. Fairfax was asked about an e-mail 
sent from him to the Directorate of Compliance Program staff on 
January 5, 2000, that stated:
    ``I am sure that most of you by now have seen or heard 
about the firestorm created over our interpretation of employer 
responsibilities over employees working at home. I want to 
point out that while this has created quite a sensation * * * 
that the interpretation was and is correct from a worker safety 
and health perspective and according to the OSH Act. Those of 
you that have worked on the interp (SIC) were doing your jobs 
correctly and professionally, no one has found fault in what 
was said in our letter. The issues being raised are political 
and not safety and health related. Both Charles Jeffress and 
Davis Layne asked me to stress their support and faith in us 
and our work.''
    This statement by Mr. Fairfax, in combination with an 
additional e-mail transmission by one of OSHA's Regional 
Directors called into question whether some action in addition 
to OSHA's withdrawal of the letter of interpretation would be 
necessary to clarify OSHA policy. The e-mail by this Regional 
Director, dated January 5, 2000, to employees throughout the 
Denver regional office of OSHA, stated:
    ``The letter of interpretation has been removed from the 
OSHA website, (but) for your information, the letter accurately 
articulates the position of the Department and the Agency, 
however for now, don't engage in the discussion.''
    Based on an apparent misunderstanding of OSHA employees 
over the agency's enforcement policy for work-at-home, the 
Subcommittee questioned Mr. Jeffress on whether the agency 
would be willing to disseminate some form of ``instruction'' or 
``policy directive'' to OSHA field personnel that would 
communicate his position at the hearing. Mr. Jeffress stated 
that OSHA would be willing to do this.
            d. OSHA ``Instruction'' or ``Policy Directive'' on Home-
                    Based Worksites
    In following through on the assurance that OSHA would issue 
an ``instruction'' or ``policy directive'' on home based 
worksites, the Subcommittee secured from OSHA an assurance that 
the agency would provide a draft of this policy statement for 
the Subcommittee's review and comment before formal issuance. 
On February 22, 2000, OSHA officials met with Subcommittee 
staff and shared a draft copy of the ``Instruction.'' On 
February 23, 2000, a revised draft was circulated to 
Subcommittee Members.
    On February 25, 2000, the Subcommittee informed the DOL 
Secretary in writing that, ``Considering the importance of the 
issue, the members of this Subcommittee believe it was an 
important first step'' to issue a policy directive to clarify 
any confusion that may have resulted from OSHA's issuance of 
the November 1999 letter of interpretation. The Subcommittee 
noted, however, ``[T]his OSHA Instruction is subject to change 
without public notice or input.'' The Subcommittee also noted 
that many of the terms contained in that Instruction, such as 
definitions of ``home office'' or ``home based work,'' were 
legally untested and, in the future, courts may be called upon 
to interpret these terms. To supplement the Instruction, the 
Subcommittee recommended that OSHA and the DOL formally request 
public comment from all interested parties. In addition, the 
Subcommittee requested that OSHA and the DOL provide any future 
proposed change to the OSHA Instruction in advance of issuance 
to the Subcommittee for its review and comment.

e. Implementation of Management Change within OSHA to Institute 
        Accountability in the Policy Review and Approval Process

    During his appearance before the Subcommittee on January 
28, 2000, Mr. Jeffress stated that changes would be made within 
OSHA's management structure to assure accountability in the 
issuance of important policy interpretations, such as the 
November 1999 letter concerning home-based worksites. Mr. 
Jeffress also stated that he would have to review the 
management structure and consult with other DOL officials 
before implementing such changes. Accordingly, Mr. Jeffress 
stated that he and other senior managers at the DOL would 
report back to the Subcommittee at a later date concerning 
these steps toward accountability.
    On April 5, 2000, the Subcommittee conducted a follow-up 
hearing on OSHA's work-at-home enforcement policy to examine 
the DOL's changes within the agency at large and within OSHA in 
particular. In testifying, Deputy DOL Secretary Montgomery 
informed the Subcommittee that change had begun but had not 
been completed within OSHA or throughout the DOL. Dr. 
Montgomery also assured the Subcommittee that the process of 
implementing management accountability change would continue 
and asked for more time to effect those changes. The 
Subcommittee agreed to provide this additional time, and 
informed Dr. Montgomery that it would expect a full report in 
the future.

2. GAO Report on Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
        Inspections and Labor Unrest

            a. Background
    On May 7, 1997, Subcommittee Chairman Hoekstra and Cass 
Ballenger, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Workforce 
Protections (Workforce Subcommittee), asked the GAO to study 
OSHA inspections at establishments experiencing labor unrest. 
Specifically, the Congressmen requested that the GAO determine: 
(1) the extent to which employers experiencing labor unrest are 
more likely to be inspected than employers not experiencing 
labor unrest, and (2) whether OSHA has policies for performing 
inspections during periods of labor unrest and whether these 
policies are followed.
    The GAO conducted the study between June 1999 and June 
2000, and released its report entitled, ``OSHA Inspections at 
Establishments Experiencing Labor Unrest,'' on August 31, 2000. 
The GAO's methodology identified approximately 22,000 
establishments each year from Fiscal Years (FY) 1994 to 1998 
that experienced labor unrest using data compiled by the 
National Labor Relations Board and the Federal Mediation and 
Conciliation Service, which both track work stoppages.
            b. GAO findings
    The GAO report concluded that OSHA inspections occur about 
6.5 times more frequently in companies experiencing labor 
unrest based on the following ``key'' findings:
    (1) About 68 percent of OSHA inspections at companies 
experiencing labor unrest were generated by complaints, 
fatalities or catastrophes as compared with 27 percent of all 
OSHA inspections;
    (2) Seventy-six percent of establishments experiencing 
unrest were unionized, as compared with 24 percent of all 
establishments inspected by OSHA; and
    (3) Sixty-one percent of the inspections involving labor 
unrest were in manufacturing facilities, compared with 26 
percent of all OSHA inspections.
            c. Subcommittee recommendations
    This report's findings may serve as the basis for 
additional inquiry for the GAO to determine the ratio and 
severity of penalties issued for complaints filed in union and 
non-union shops during labor unrest.

3. Investigation of Alleged Improper Judicial Conduct at the 
        Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

    In the summer of 2000, a ``whistleblower'' at the 
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) 
informed the Subcommittee of alleged improprieties at that 
agency. Specifically, the ``whistleblower'' discussed how OSHRC 
officials were allegedly assigning cases to at least one judge 
outside of the normal judicial rotation, thereby affecting the 
results of the case. On July 25, 2000, the Subcommittee wrote 
OSHRC Chairperson Thomasina V. Rogers to request information 
and documents relating to this allegation, and to request that 
the agency begin its own internal investigation. Although the 
Subcommittee's investigation and OSHRC's internal review did 
not reveal any evidence of such alleged improper case 
assignments, the agency has renewed its vigilance in overseeing 
its procedures in this regard.

  E. OVERSIGHT OF THE MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION: ALLEGED 
                       MANAGEMENT IRREGULARITIES

1. Nepotism in personnel policy

    Like all federal agencies, the Mine Safety and Health 
Administration (MSHA) must comply with all applicable 
regulations prohibiting nepotism in its personnel policies 
particularly regarding hiring, firing, and promotions. In late 
1999, a ``whistleblower'' presumably employed by MSHA contacted 
the Committee regarding allegations of nepotism by high-ranking 
MSHA officials specifically regarding a husband working in a 
position to improperly supervise his wife.
    On January 6, 2000, Subcommittee Chairman Hoekstra and 
Workforce Subcommittee Chairman Ballenger wrote the DOL's 
Office of the Inspector General (DOL IG) requesting that it 
investigate these allegations. This letter prompted an ongoing 
``joint'' investigation between the Subcommittee and the DOL IG 
resulting in the DOL IG's renewed vigilance in overseeing the 
propriety of MSHA's personnel practices. Accordant ``firsts'' 
included information sharing of DOL IG investigative reports 
with the Subcommittee.

2. Inappropriate contract awards

            a. Background
    MSHA must also comply with proper contracting procedures 
including its award of ``sole source'' contracts (i.e., those 
for less than $25,000) that must be competitive bid and awarded 
based on merit rather than on any improper motive. 
Whistleblower communications about inappropriate conduct in the 
award of these contracts by certain high-ranking MSHA officials 
prompted the Subcommittee to open an investigation that led to 
the DOL IG's involvement based on the severity and extent of 
the allegations.
            b. Investigation raises ethical questions
    The Subcommittee's series of correspondence to the DOL 
Secretary began on May 5, 2000, when the Subcommittee requested 
specific information relating to the bidding policies and 
practices applicable to MSHA's awards of source contracts, and 
copies of MSHA sole source contracts for personal services 
(i.e., photography, lectures, etc.). After a delay of 
questionable necessity, the DOL responded to the Subcommittee's 
request and produced hundreds of pages of documents that 
Subcommittee staff reviewed. This initial review suggested 
certain patterns in the award of MSHA contracts to recipients 
with alleged ties to officials working for MSHA as well as the 
Mining Academy in West Virginia.
    Meanwhile, additional whistleblowers currently and 
previously employed by MSHA contacted Subcommittee staff to 
corroborate the allegations at issue and raise additional 
allegations such as document shredding at the agency in an 
effort to hide records from the Subcommittee. Committee staff 
joined the Subcommittee's investigation of the shredding 
allegation in particular, which resulted in DOL officials 
providing contradictory explanations of this occurrence.
    In furtherance of its investigation, on June 22, 2000, the 
Subcommittee sent additional correspondence to the DOL 
Secretary that enumerated the questionable contracts and named 
the officials under investigation. In responding to this 
letter, the DOL Solicitor answered certain questions primarily 
concerning contracting procedures but declined to answer 
questions concerning specific contractors, instead, advising 
the Subcommittee that these questions had been referred to the 
DOL IG.
            c. Joint Investigation with the DOL IG
    On June 28, 2000, the Subcommittee wrote the DOL IG 
regarding its concerns pertaining to the DOL Solicitor's letter 
of response dated June 7, 2000, that ``a number of sole source 
service contracts may have been misfiled.'' The Solicitor did 
not identify the misfiled documents. Given the appearance of 
impropriety raised by such misfiling, the Subcommittee 
requested aninvestigation of the prevalence of document 
misfiling at MSHA as well as an evaluation of the DOL's ability to 
collect and produce documents on a timely basis.
    Although the Subcommittee continued it's own parallel 
investigation, its joint investigation with the DOL IG yielded 
positive results including sharing document and witness 
information. On September 13, 2000, the Acting Inspector 
General shared with Subcommittee Chairman Hoekstra details of 
her Office's investigation including the results of certain 
witness interviews and what contracts her Office dismissed from 
further inquiry.
            d. Subcommittee recommendations
    Although this investigation is ongoing, results thus far 
include the DOL IG's commitment to examine the propriety of 
every contract award at issue and, more generally, to renew 
efforts to ensure that MSHA officials follow proper contracting 
procedures. In addition, the DOL IG has referred one suspicious 
contract to its New York regional office for further inquiry. 
The Subcommittee should continue its investigation and its 
oversight of the DOL IG's investigation to ensure the fair and 
expeditious resolution of all charges by dismissal or referral 
for ethical and/or criminal prosecution.

 F. INVESTIGATION INTO USE OF TAXPAYER FUNDS FOR QUESTIONABLE OFFICIAL 
                        TRAVEL BY DOL OFFICIALS

1. Background

    In discharging its congressional responsibilities, the 
Subcommittee has a duty to investigate allegations of 
mismanagement, waste, fraud, and abuse by those agencies and 
agency officials within its jurisdiction. The sequence of 
events which constituted probable cause for an investigation by 
the Committee into travel for ``political purposes'' by the DOL 
Secretary and certain DOL political employees (i.e., PAS, non-
career SES appointees, and schedule C employees) began with the 
publication of an article in the August 27, 2000 edition of the 
Washington Post. This publication questioned ED Secretary 
Riley's ``travel to make public appearances with 10 House 
Democrats locked in competitive races.''
    An obvious, analogous question was whether the DOL 
Secretary was engaging in improper, political travel at 
taxpayer's expense. Compounding this question was the existence 
of previous ``whistleblower'' contacts with the Committee 
alleging improper, politically motivated travel at taxpayer 
expense by the DOL Secretary and other DOL officials. In 
addition, the Committee learned that the DOL Inspector 
General's Office (DOL IG) was investigating the propriety of 
certain trips taken by the DOL Secretary and other political 
appointees employed at the DOL to determine whether such travel 
was for the veiled, improper purpose of political campaigning. 
The ``straw that broke the camel's back'' came with the receipt 
of an anonymous letter from a current DOL employee providing 
specific details of what was alleged to have been improper, 
politically motivated travel. The accusations in this letter 
presented specific information necessitating immediate 
oversight.

2. Unreasonable DOL document production

    By letter dated September 11, 2000, Committee Chairman 
Goodling and Subcommittee Chairman Hoekstra wrote the DOL 
Secretary to request documents relating to her travel and 
related expenses, and other such documents for political 
appointees working at the DOL. These requested documents were 
generated and maintained by the DOL and were unavailable to the 
Committee by any other source. Despite the Committee's efforts 
to narrow the scope of its request and extend the production 
deadlines for the sole benefit of the DOL, the DOL did not make 
a timely or complete production.

3. Subcommittee findings

    After reviewing hundreds of pages of DOL documents, the 
Subcommittee found no specific evidence of impropriety. 
Nevertheless, in furtherance of the Committee's investigation, 
Subcommittee staff conducted separate meetings with DOL and DOL 
IG representatives. These meetings raised questions about 
whether the DOL had failed to make a complete document 
production of the Committee's request for ``any and all'' 
responsive documents.
    On October 19, 2000, the Subcommittee met with 
representatives from the DOL IG including the Assistant IG for 
Audit to discuss its investigative procedure and findings. At 
that juncture, the IG's investigation had found no 
improprieties. During this interview, the Subcommittee 
discovered that the IG's methodology for this investigation had 
depended on self-reporting by the DOL politically appointed 
officials. The Committee also found that the DOL Secretary and 
at least two high-ranking DOL employees did not turn in the 
appropriate paperwork during one reporting period.
    On October 23, 2000, the Subcommittee interviewed the DOL's 
Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management (OASAM) 
Patricia Lattimore, and DOL Deputy Solicitor Paxton regarding 
OASAM's travel policies and, in particular, Ms. Lattimore's 
responsibility to oversee the DOL Secretary's travel. As a 
result of Ms. Lattimore's explanation of the process for DOL 
travel approval the Committee learned that some of the travel 
vouchers produced by the DOL lacked OASAM approval and were, in 
effect, not final documents.

4. Recommendation

    The Subcommittee finds that the DOL's production response 
did not include all paperwork from OASAM to agency officials or 
employees pertaining to the correction of deficiencies in 
travel vouchers. Ms. Lattimore agreed to produce these 
documents and, at the date of this writing, the Subcommittee 
awaits such production.

   G. REVIEW OF U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, OFFICE OF LABOR MANAGEMENT 
  STANDARDS, INTERNATIONAL UNION COMPLIANCE PROGRAM REVIEW PROCEDURES

1. Background

    Under the Labor Management Reporting Disclosure Act of 
1959, as amended (LMRDA), the DOL's Office of Labor Management 
Standards (OLMS) is responsible for conducting audits to 
]determine if unions are complying with legal reporting requirements. 
One such audit is the International Compliance Audit Program (I-CAP), 
conducted for an international union.
    According to the I-CAP Handbook, an internal agency 
document that guides the conduct of these audits, the I-CAP has 
four principal objectives:
    (1) Determine compliance by the international union with 
the criminal and civil provisions of the LMRDA, or provisions 
of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA);
    (2) Review, to the extent possible, compliance by 
affiliated unions with the criminal and civil provisions of the 
LMRDA (or CSRA);
    (3) Provide assistance to international unions and their 
affiliates to help them comply with the LMRDA (or CSRA); and
    (4) Increase communication and cooperation between OLMS and 
international unions.
    The I-CAP includes financial audit procedures and LMRDA 
compliance procedures. The financial audit procedures discussed 
in the I-CAP Report are not equivalent to those stipulated 
under Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS) or Generally 
Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS). Additionally, 
although OLMS uses similar and sometimes identical terminology 
as GAAS and GAGAS, the definitions are not comparable. There 
are different assertions and objectives embodied in each type 
of audit. The I-CAP procedures encompass 25 mandatory steps, 35 
optional steps, and allow for additional steps as deemed 
necessary.
    OLMS personnel performing I-CAPs are not subjected to the 
same standards as Government Auditors or Certified Public 
Accountants performing compliance work in the public and 
private sectors. Individuals performing I-CAPs are considered 
investigators and, therefore, are not required to follow 
Government Auditing Standards (Yellow Book) or Generally 
Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS). However, the Subcommittee 
believes that the government's standards follow the ``Quality 
Standards for Investigations'' set forth by the President's 
Council on Integrity and Efficiency and the Executive Council 
on Integrity and Efficiency.
    As outlined in the I-CAP Handbook, upon completion of the 
on-site I-CAP procedures, the OLMS national office forwards 
investigative leads and case referrals, designated as mandatory 
or discretionary, to the appropriate OLMS District Offices for 
further action.

2. Limitations of the I-CAP

    Based on the Subcommittee's review of one sample I-CAP 
report and the supporting documentation generated internally by 
OLMS and provided by the subject international union, the 
Subcommittee finds that the primary objective of the I-CAP is 
compliance by the international union and its affiliates with 
the criminal and civil provisions of the LMRDA, or the 
provisions of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA). The 
I-CAP is not intended, however, to be a substitute for the work 
performed by Independent Auditors and their assertions related 
to the financial position of the union.
    According to the DOL, each I-CAP Team should have access to 
all union internal documentation, including electronic media, 
either through voluntary cooperation or subpoena. The Team has 
great flexibility in determining the focus of targeted areas 
and has the authority to initiate verification of transactions 
with outside third parties. These third-party verifications are 
sent to the appropriate OLMS district office by the I-CAP Team 
to make contact with the designated party. The I-CAP Team 
provides specific instructions concerning the information to be 
obtained from or about the third party by the district office. 
Upon completion by the district office, findings are sent back 
to the initiating office for further evaluation. The I-CAP Team 
Leader has the discretionary authority to terminate further 
actions on third-party verifications.
    As referenced in the ``I-CAP Opening Interview Guide,'' 
another internal DOL document, if the union fails to fully 
cooperate in providing the information requested by the team or 
in producing records for their examination, an OLMS District 
Director, after receiving approval from the OLMS National 
Director, Division of Enforcement (DOE), may serve a subpoena 
duces tecum on union officials.

3. The Importance of the I-CAP

    It is important to recognize the use of certain terminology 
within the scope of an I-CAP and how those terms differ from 
the identical or similar language as defined in GAAS and GAGAS 
(Yellow Book). Terms such as ``compliance audit,'' ``financial 
audit,'' ``internal controls,'' and ``sampling techniques'' 
that appear in the ``I-CAP Opening Interview Guide'' are good 
examples. ``Compliance audit'' and ``financial audit'' seem to 
be used interchangeably by the OLMS when the agency refers to 
the I-CAP. The OLMS, however, does not provide a clear 
definition of these terms. Individuals familiar with GAGAS 
(Yellow Book) and the auditing standards (GAAS), as adopted by 
the membership of the American Institute of Certified Public 
Accountants (AICPA), may interpret these as terms as 
representing structure and authority. In reality, the OLMS is 
not required to follow the same high standards as other 
professions as the persons performing the I-CAPS are 
``investigators.''

4. Subcommittee Findings

    Based on the Subcommittee's review of the I-CAP and 
corresponding working papers, the term ``internal controls'' as 
used by the OLMS describes the very basics of controls over 
receipts and disbursements. Upon completion of the I-CAP, 
however, the OLMS often reports that the international union's 
``internal controls'' are strong. This is another source of 
possible confusion because according to GAAS and GAGAS, the 
term internal control can be defined as follows:
    ``Internal control is a process--effected by an entity's 
board of directors, management, and other personnel--designed 
to provide reasonable assurance regarding the achievement of 
objectives in the following categories: (a) reliability of 
financial reporting, (b) effectiveness and efficiency of 
operations, and (c) compliance with applicable laws and 
regulations. It consists of fiveinterrelated components, which 
are: (1) control environment, (2) risk assessment, (3) control 
activities, (4) information and communication, and (5) monitoring.''
    Accordingly, there is a marked difference in the scope and 
meaning of this term.
    In another area, the very nature of an I-CAP is extremely 
subjective in terms of what specific areas will be examined and 
in what detail will be examined. As mentioned previously, at 
the outset, OLMS develops a strategy for selecting and 
performing optional audit steps over and above the 23 mandatory 
steps.
    ``Sampling techniques'' as performed by the OLMS are 
limited to non-statistical methods. Part of the audit process 
is to identify transactions for further testing. References to 
sampling in the ``Summary/Referral Memorandum'' simply state, 
``On a sampling basis * * * [.]'' Ultimately, the items sampled 
are based on the judgment of the I-CAP Team. According to GAAS, 
``Sample items should be selected in such a way that the sample 
can be expected to be representative of the population. 
Therefore, all items in the population should have the 
opportunity to be selected.'' (AICPA Professional Standards AU 
Section 350.24)
    Scanning is another means of selecting transactions for 
further testing. This method does require the establishment of 
certain criteria. For example, I-CAP Step 20 indicates that all 
international union disbursement journals for the audit period 
should be scanned for large or unusual disbursements and all 
check issued to cash transactions. Large and unusual 
disbursements were deemed those that met at least one of the 
following criteria:
    (1) Amount was greater than $10,000;
    (2) Amounts were even dollars;
    (3) Purpose of disbursement was not readily apparent from 
entries recorded in the disbursement ledger;
    (4) Disbursements appeared to be duplicative of other 
transactions; or
    (5) Legitimacy was in question because the descriptions in 
the disbursement ledger lacked clarity.
    When considering the broad scope of ``scanning'' and the 
wide range of criteria that can be met, many transactions that 
could be selected are often overlooked. Again, there is great 
flexibility for OLMS in determining which transactions will be 
subject to further scrutiny by the I-CAP Team.

5. Summary

    The Subcommittee's review of a sample I-CAP Report provided 
valuable insight into the methodology behind the process. Since 
the Subcommittee has not had access to other union I-CAPs, 
comparisons to other I-CAPs cannot be made at this time.
    According to the DOL, OLMS has conducted compliance audits 
of more than 100 international unions since the I-CAP was 
initiated in 1982 (I-CAP Opening Interview Guide). As of 
February 1, 2000, there were 12 international unions, including 
the AFL-CIO, remaining that had not been subjected to an I-CAP.
    Although the Subcommittee realizes much of the terminology 
used by the OLMS in the I-CAP Report is mainly for internal 
purposes, based on review of various guides and questionnaires 
it appears this terminology is used when communicating with 
union officials. Because international unions are also 
subjected to financial statement audits performed by 
independent Certified Public Accountants, there is the element 
of risk that union officials may misinterpret the results of 
such reports.
    The sample I-CAP report and corresponding working papers 
provided a vast amount of detail, which has not been analyzed 
or documented in its entirety for the purposes of this internal 
memorandum due to time constraints. Future inquires by 
Committee Members may warrant a closer look at this 
information.

  H. OFFICE OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY'S PROPOSED ``BLACKLISTING'' 
                              REGULATIONS

    The Subcommittee worked closely with the Employer-Employee 
Relations Subcommittee (EER Subcommittee) regarding the Office 
of Federal Procurement Policy's proposed ``blacklisting'' 
regulations, an issue discussed in detail in the EER 
Subcommittee's activities report.

           I. OVERSIGHT OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

1. Indian Gaming: Abrogation of Sovereignty to Increase Organizing?

            a. Background
    On November 2, 1999, the National Labor Relations Board 
(NLRB) reported its then-General Counsel's decision to argue 
that the NLRB should change current jurisdictional standards 
and assert jurisdiction over a Native American gaming casino 
(Casino) owned and operated by the San Manuel Band of Serrano 
Mission Indians (``San Manuel'' or ``Tribe''), and located on 
tribal land near San Bernardino, California. Both the National 
Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and its legislative history are 
silent on whether the NLRA applies to Indian tribes. For 
approximately 25 years, the NRLB has declined to assert 
jurisdiction over Indian tribes and their economic enterprises 
located on reservations. It is undisputed that the NLRA applies 
to tribal-owned businesses located off-reservation or co-owned 
with a non-tribal entity.
            b. Necessity of oversight
    The legal issue in this case concerns whether the NLRB 
should interpret the NLRA's silence as to Indians to exclude 
them from its application, thereby respecting principals of 
tribal sovereignty, or to include them based on the Act's 
general applicability. Should the Board accept Counsel's 
recommendation to exert jurisdiction over the Tribe, it will 
alter labor law precedent by abrogating tribal sovereignty over 
Indian owned and operated business enterprises located on 
tribal lands. The Board's decision to exert jurisdiction will 
also open the floodgatesof union organization of Indian gaming 
employees. In exercising its oversight responsibilities, the 
Subcommittee questioned whether the NLRB General Counsel's decision to 
consider this matter at this date reflects an improper pro-union shift 
in the General Counsel's or the NLRB's philosophical bent. Accordingly, 
on May 15, 2000, the Subcommittee wrote the NLRB's successor General 
Counsel a letter to request details about this decision to help ensure 
that any decision to exert, or refrain from exerting, jurisdiction over 
the Tribe is based on neutral principals rather than any pro-union or 
otherwise improper sentiment. The letter did not address the substance 
of the General Counsel's decision-making process, but instead focused 
on: (1) matters pending before the NLRB on issues concerning tribal 
sovereignty; (2) whether any person or organization was exerting undue 
influence over the General Counsel or his Office; and (3) an 
explanation of the General Counsel's decision to overturn 25 years of 
legal precedent. In addition to Subcommittee Chairman Hoekstra, 
signatories to the letter included Majority Leader Richard K. Armey, 
Majority Whip Tom DeLay, and Congressional Native American Caucus Co-
Chairman J.D. Hayworth.
            c. General Counsel's response
    By letter dated June 12, 2000, the General Counsel 
responded to the Subcommittee's inquiry (Response Letter). Per 
the Response Letter, the General Counsel's decision appeared 
primarily based on promoting a pro-organization agenda for the 
following reasons.
    As an initial matter, the General Counsel argued that the 
NLRA is a statute of general applicability that presumptively 
applies to Indian employers since: (1) regulation of the Casino 
is not limited to ``purely intramural matters'' concerning 
tribal membership, inheritance rules, and domestic relations; 
and (2) matters concerning non-members are at issue (the union 
supporting the Board's exertion of jurisdiction approximates 
that 95 percent of the Casino's employees and approximately 98 
percent of the Casino's customers are non-Indian). The General 
Counsel also argued, although this appears to be a value 
judgment disputed by the Tribe among other entities, that the 
NLRA does not conflict with the Indian Gaming and Regulatory 
Act (IGRA [25 U.S.C. 2701(5)]), since the latter statute does 
not regulate labor or employment relations in the Indian gaming 
industry, nor is there any mention of the NLRA in IGRA's 
provisions. Specifically, IGRA provides tribes with the 
``exclusive right to regulate gaming activity on Indian lands 
if the gaming activity is not specifically prohibited by 
federal law and is conducted within a state which does not, as 
a matter of criminal law and public policy, prohibit such 
gaming activity.''
            d. Subcommittee analysis
    Although the General Counsel's legal arguments appeared 
factually sound, as reflected in the case law cited in the 
Response Letter and briefs previously submitted to the NLRB, 
the Subcommittee expressed concern over three primary 
propositions set forth in the Response Letter.
    First, the Response Letter was written as if the NLRB's 
decision to assert jurisdiction in this regard was a fait 
accompli. Specifically, the General Counsel's opening paragraph 
stated that he had submitted the requested information 
``regarding the decision to assert jurisdiction over the San 
Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino.'' The NLRB has not yet ruled on 
the General Counsel's motion on this issue and has not set a 
hearing date for oral argument on the Tribe's motion to dismiss 
the General Counsel's complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
    Moreover, the General Counsel appeared to evade the 
Subcommittee's question as to whether the NLRB would find 
useful any clarification of congressional intent with regard to 
the sovereignty of Native American business enterprises 
operating on tribal land. The Subcommittee shared the view 
expressed by many legislators and Native American gaming casino 
owners and operators that such clarification would be useful 
given that: (1) the legislative history is silent; (2) there 
has been no impetus for administrative change such as new facts 
or other legal circumstances surrounding this issue for a 
quarter-century; and (3) neither Congress nor the courts have 
legislated/determined whether IGRA conflicts with the NLRA, and 
the Tribes and other interested parties have argued that IGRA 
should control given its ``exclusivity'' clause.
            e. Subcommittee recommendations
    Given that the San Manuel case is still pending before the 
NLRB, Subcommittee oversight of this litigation is necessary to 
monitor whether the agency will continue its recent trend to 
overturn precedent in favor of unions or, at least, pro-
organizing principles.

2. Delay in the appellate process

            a. Background
    The NLRB, as an agency, essentially provides two avenues 
for parties to pursue appeals of decisions that they consider 
unfair or legally or procedurally improper. After a Regional 
Office has decided an unfair labor practice charge or a 
petition for representation, a charging party that disagrees 
with the decision may file an appeal to the NLRB's General 
Counsel. The Office of Appeals handles those appeals.
    Should the NLRB agree to hear a case, it will issue a 
decision that a party may appeal to its regional federal Court 
of Appeal or to the District of Columbia (federal) Court of 
Appeal. Enforcement and review of final NLRB decisions are 
handled by the Appellate Court Branch, which may also decide to 
appeal that decision to the appropriate federal Court of 
Appeal.
            b. Necessity of oversight
    During the summer of 2000, the Subcommittee heard NLRB 
stakeholders express their concern over lengthy delays 
experienced in both NLRB appellate venues. Accordingly, on 
August 15, 2000, Subcommittee Chairman Hoekstra wrote a letter 
to the NLRB General Counsel to inquire as to the agency's 
processing of enforcement proceedings to achieve appellate 
review of NLRB decisions in the U.S. Courts of Appeals. 
Chairman Hoekstra's questions generally inquired about the 
information the agency dispenses to parties regarding case 
processing time and specifically asked about the average, mean, 
and longest times for case handling.
            c. NLRB response
    The General Counsel's response letter quoted case 
processing times for the Appellate Court Branch during FY98 and 
FY99. Perhaps the most egregious example of delay concerned an 
enforcement case filed during FY99, where no petition for 
review was filed, that took 549 days from the Appellate Court 
Branch's receipt of the case to the filing of an application 
for enforcement in the appropriate federal Appellate Court. 
Although the General Counsel shared the Subcommittee's concern 
about the negative impact of case backlog on the NLRB's 
customer satisfaction and the agency's overall performance, the 
General Counsel did not offer any solutions to combat this 
problem.
            d. Subcommittee recommendation
    In addition to its letter, the Subcommittee and the EER 
Subcommittee met with the NLRB Inspector General to discuss the 
NLRB's case backlog. This meeting generated positive results 
including the Inspector General's decision to include as part 
of her audit of that agency a review of backlogged cases and of 
timeliness of action within the Office of Appeals. The 
Subcommittee should continue to monitor the Inspector General's 
efforts in this regard as well as the NLRB's efforts to reduce 
its case backlog to, thereby, improve its overall performance.

   J. CONSULTATIONS WITH AGENCIES OF JURISDICTION ON SUBMISSIONS TO 
         CONGRESS UNDER GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT

1. Background

    A reading of the legislative history of the Government 
Performance and Results Act (Results Act) reveals that Congress 
enacted this law in 1993 to cause a fundamental shift in the 
focus of government decision-making and accountability from a 
preoccupation with the activities performed by an agency 
(process) to a focus on the results or outcomes of those 
activities. For example, Congress was interested in shifting 
the focus from how many enforcement actions may have occurred 
within a particular agency (process) to how those enforcement 
actions may have improved the overall compliance with the law 
in the regulated community (outcome).
    Producing this information on ``outcomes'' necessitated the 
institution of a management process. Accordingly, the Results 
Act requires most federal agencies to develop multi-year 
Strategic Plans, annual Performance Plans, and annual 
Performance Reports. Congress contemplated that this process 
would include frequent consultation between Members of Congress 
and the agencies under their jurisdiction. This process of 
consultation was envisioned as an essential part of an overall 
system of managing for results. Accordingly, the Subcommittee 
initiated and conducted a number of consultative meetings with 
agencies over the 106th Congress. The findings made by the 
Subcommittee during these consultative meetings are reported 
below.

2. Results Act requirements

    Congress passed the Results Act based on the Congress' 
findings and belief that ``regular and systematic reporting of 
performance, compared to pre-established goals, would be a 
major addition'' to management in government. The reforms 
provided in the Results Act would provide tools for federal 
``managers, policymakers and the American people to think about 
what services the government should provide, and how well it 
does at providing'' these services.
    Congress designed Strategic Plans to serve as the starting 
points, and basic underpinnings, of an effective program of 
goal-setting and performance measurement. Under the Results 
Act, Strategic Plans were designed as multi-year plans (much 
like a business plan or a work plan) in which the fundamental 
mission(s) of an organization is (are) articulated and a 
``leadership vision'' in terms of long term, strategic goals 
for implementing that mission is communicated.
    To be of maximum usefulness, Congress found that that these 
plans should have a direct link to the agency's daily 
operations. As such, the fundamental mission of an agency has 
little to do with political philosophy and serves, rather, as a 
statement of the agency's reason to exist, in terms of its 
congressional mandate(s). Agency leadership, in contrast, has 
numerous options available in terms planning for results.
    Performance Plans are the vehicle for this direct linkage 
between the agency's daily operations and its long term plans 
for improvement as expressed in its Strategic Plan. As such, 
these performance plans break long-term objectives into 
tangible, short-term operational plans that directly relate to 
the way the agency conducts its day-to-day business.
    Performance results are reports that serve as feedback to 
agency managers, policymakers, and the general public 
concerning what the agency has actually accomplished for the 
resources expended. Like any performance-based management 
system, this requires a process of choosing appropriate 
measurements for performance and then periodically (annually 
for reporting purposes under the Results Act, but in theory 
more frequently inside the agency) assessing outcomes or 
results based on these measures. Obviously, performance 
appraisal requires analysis: are the measures chosen 
appropriate for indicating progress; were there unforeseen 
events which influenced the outcome measures and ``skewed'' the 
measurement system; or, ``is the entire underlying premise of 
the program'' flawed?
    In this planning process, Congress believed that 
consultations with policymakers and the general public was an 
essential component of the overall success of the use of this 
management technique in government. Congress contemplated that 
the annual process of submitting performance goals and 
objectives and performance result reports would become an 
integral component of the appropriations and budgeting process. 
The authorizing committees were empowered to use this 
information to conduct oversight in terms of monitoring the 
agency's success in meeting its statutory mandate(s). In sum, 
if agencies properly implemented the management system 
envisioned under the Results Act, policymakers would be able to 
assess which programs were working well, which needed revisions 
(possibly statutory), identify where waste existed, and 
evaluate whether further improvements were called for even in 
programs that seemed to work well.
    In terms of consultations with the public, armed with 
information about the agency's management system, citizens 
(stakeholders) could communicate with their government using 
the same language as regulators. Moreover, armed with accurate 
information, the public would renew its confidence in the 
government to satisfy an underlying purpose of the Results Act.

3. The timetable for implementation of the act

    A timetable was established to phase-in each of these 
requirements: Strategic Plans were to be completed no later 
than October 1997; annual Performance Plans were to be 
completed each year thereafter; and no later than March 31, 
2000, all agencies were to complete their first Performance 
Report (for FY99) followed by similar annual reports. 
Accordingly, agencies have recently completed the first full-
cycle of submissions required under the Results Act.

4. Subcommittee findings during consultation process

            a. Employment Standards Administration
    Background--The Employment Standards Administration (ESA) 
enforces and administers laws governing legally-mandated wages 
and working conditions, including child labor, minimum wages, 
overtime and family and medical leave; equal employment 
opportunity in businesses with federal contracts and 
subcontracts; workers' compensation for certain employees 
injured on their jobs; internal union democracy and financial 
integrity, and union elections, which protect the rights of 
union members; and other laws and regulations governing 
employment standards and practices.
    ESA has four component programs: the Office of Federal 
Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP); the Office of Labor-
Management Standards (OLMS); the Office of Workers' 
Compensation Programs (OWCP); and the Wage and Hour Division 
(WH). While each program has an established identity of its 
own, ESA is charged with overall direction in terms of 
strategic planning, establishment of performance plans, and 
performance measurement for each of these units.
    As the overall agency responsible for coordination of 
diverse programs, the ESA is responsible for administration of 
statutory mandates including: the Fair Labor Standards Act; the 
Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act; the 
Employee Polygraph Protection Act; various ``whistleblower'' 
protection laws; those portions of the nation's immigration 
laws which provide certain employment standards and worker 
protections, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993; the 
Davis-Bacon and related Acts; the McNamara-O'Hara Service 
Contract Act; the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act; Executive 
Order 11246, as amended; Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act 
of 1973; the affirmative action provisions of the Vietnam Era 
Veteran's Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974; the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, as amended 
(LMRDA); various other labor-management related acts such as 
the Postal Reorganization Act, Civil Service Reform Act and 
Foreign Service Act; the Transit Employee Protection Program 
and other employee protection programs; the Federal Employees' 
Compensation Act; and the Black Lung Benefits Reform Act of 
1977.
    ESA Consultation With Congress--On June 27, 2000, ESA 
representatives met with Subcommittee Members to discuss the 
agency's Strategic Plans and performance outcomes under the 
Results Act. Initiating this discussion, ESA informed the 
Subcommittee that its program goals support two of the DOL 
Secretary's strategic goals for the Department: a secure 
workforce and quality workplaces. The ESA reported that it had 
structured eight performance goals to support the Department's 
strategic goals, each of which appeared in the Department's 
Strategic and Performance Plans and in the DOL's FY99 Annual 
Report on Performance and Accountability. ESA asserted that 
these performance goals set a standard for measuring the 
performance and effectiveness of its programs.
    The ESA also discussed the process it used to stay abreast 
of its progress in meeting its Results Act goals including 
quarterly reviews of the status of each of its programs' 
performance. During this review, the ESA reported that it 
discusses the effectiveness of its strategies for goal 
achievement and evaluates necessary corrections or 
interventions. To emphasize the importance of achieving its 
strategic and performance goals, the ESA reported that it 
conducts performance appraisals of all senior managers to 
include elements for rating that manager's contribution to the 
achievement of the strategic and performance goals. ESA also 
reported that its Program Directors, in turn, specify 
performance expectations related to goal accomplishment for the 
Regional Directors who manage the agency's program operations 
in the field.
    ESA further reported that it and the DOL-at-large work 
closely with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the 
DOL OIG to develop and revise goals and measures. The ESA 
stated that it had made considerable refinements in its plans 
and strategies based on recommendations from the GAO. In sum, 
ESA informed the Subcommittee that the GPRA process had helped 
it to focus its efforts on the accomplishment of long-term 
outcomes and to express them more clearly to its program 
managers, to congressional stakeholders, and to the American 
public.
    The ESA reported that in FY99, it achieved six of its eight 
goals and had substantially achieved the other two goals in its 
departmental plan. These performance results caused ESA to 
reexamine how it defined its goals and helped it identify where 
it needed to refine its performance measures and implementation 
strategies. As a result, ESA's FY99 experience was a catalyst 
for a number of revised goals and performance measures that are 
now included in its FY00 and FY01 Performance Plans.
    Regarding the specific measures of ESA's Performance Plans, 
ESA informed the Subcommittee that WH had two broad and 
complementary objectives for FY99: (1) to achieve compliance 
with the worker protection laws for which it is responsible; 
and (2) to improve satisfaction with the services it provides 
its many and varied customers. These broad goals are broken 
down into three specific goals that appeared in the DOL's FY99 
Annual Performance Plan and Report to implement these 
objectives: (1) to increase compliance with labor standards 
laws and regulations by five percent in the San Francisco and 
New York City garment industries; (2) to establish compliance 
baselines for the agricultural commodities of onions, lettuce, 
and cucumbers; and (3) to establish a baseline for the assisted 
living facilities segment of the residential health care 
industry. ESA reported that WH had established a goal to 
implement a new Davis-Bacon wage survey data collection form 
and an automated printing and mailing process, and to test 
whether automation can increase the accuracy and timeliness of 
the survey process and wage determinations.
    The OFCCP's goals for FY99 included targets to increase by 
five percent over the FY98 baseline the number of federal 
contractors brought into compliance with the Equal Employment 
Opportunity (EEO) provisions of federal contracts via ESA's 
compliance evaluation procedures. The ESA reported that OFCCP 
had achieved 93 percent of this goal in FY99 with 2,648 federal 
contractors brought into compliance with EEO provisions. By the 
end of FY00, however, ESAtold the Subcommittee that it would 
refashion OFCCP's Results Act goals and measures to better capture the 
mission-related impact and outcomes of this strategy and other 
initiatives. The OWCP included two performance goals that were also 
included in the DOL's Annual Performance Plan and Report for FY99: (1) 
to return federal employees to work following an injury as early as 
appropriate, as indicated by a six percent reduction from the baseline 
in production days lost due to disability for cases in the Quality Case 
Management program; and (2) to resolve 75 percent of serious injury 
cases within one year of the beginning of the disability. The OLMS had 
three primary objectives for the LMRDA program for FY99: (1) to resolve 
member complaints concerning union officer elections, union 
trusteeships, and other matters pertaining to safeguards for union 
democracy; (2) to protect union financial integrity by enforcing 
safeguards established under the law; and (3) to ensure that LMRDA 
reports required of unions and others are available for public 
disclosure. For FY 1999, the ESA reported, OLMS had a specific goal to 
have 85 percent of unions with annual receipts greater than $200,000 
timely file union annual financial reports for public disclosure 
access.
    Subcommittee Findings--On the basis of its discussions with 
the ESA, the Subcommittee found that the agency had failed to 
report whether it had satisfactorily met performance objectives 
for several of its stated performance goals. Moreover, the 
Subcommittee found that ESA had neglected to even establish 
performance goals for certain, ``core'' operational programs.
    Congress is totally incapable of evaluating the outcomes of 
certain programs in an agency if those programs are not subject 
to measurement and/or reporting requirement. Accordingly, 
without an agency's compliance with the Results Act, Congress 
has no way of determining whether the monies appropriated to 
the agency are used effectively, nor can it evaluate whether an 
agency has properly discharged its statutory mandates. In other 
words, the actions of ESA described above are tantamount to an 
agency's self-imposed exemption from clearly defined statutory 
mandates under the Results Act--a situation that Congress 
should not tolerate.
            b. Oversight of National Labor Relations Board
    Background--The Subcommittee reviewed the National Labor 
Relations Board's (NLRB) Results Act submissions to determine 
whether those submissions: (1) complied with the Results Act; 
and (2) were aligned with the agency's statutory mission. The 
NLRB's statutory mission is ``[T]o determine the appropriate 
unit for the purpose of collective bargaining, to investigate 
and provide for hearings, and determine whether a question of 
representation exists, and to direct an election or take a 
secret ballot * * * and certify the results[.]''
    Subcommittee Findings--Given the NLRB's flexibility 
according to its statutory mandates, the Subcommittee found 
that that the agency's Strategic Plan, Performance Plan, and 
Performance Report, generally, proved faithful to its 
congressional purpose. What remains at issue, however, is the 
agency's ``ideological even-handedness'' with which it decides 
questions concerning representation and unfair labor practice 
charges. This issue is not addressed in the NLRB's plans or 
reports, and it would serve the agency well to examine this 
issue as a quality-control measure.
    Moreover, the NLRB primarily attributes its failure to meet 
several goals to budgetary constraints without providing 
further detail in an accounting or otherwise. Such lack of 
detail presents a catch-22 contrary to a primary purpose of the 
Results Act--to tie funding to performance. Without details to 
explain why the NLRB's then-current funding levels impeded or 
prevented it from achieving its goals, one may question the 
agency's fiscal integrity as well as whether it should receive 
increased funding.
    Necessity of Oversight--The Subcommittee incorporated these 
findings in a detailed letter that it wrote to the NLRB 
Chairman, General Counsel, and Budget Officer on July 14, 2000. 
In response, the NLRB Chairman and General Counsel agreed with 
many of the Subcommittee's findings and expressed their 
willingness to continue working with the Subcommittee to 
improve the agency's performance. The NLRB officials also 
expressed their belief that matters regarding equanimity in 
case processing ``are best left to the political judgments of 
the oversight and appointment processes.''
            c. Oversight of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
    Similar to its review of the NLRB Results Act submissions 
(above), on July 26, 2000, the Subcommittee sent a detailed 
letter to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) 
Chairwoman to gather information concerning that agency's 
Results Act submissions. The Subcommittee's focus areas 
included the following:
    Goal Prioritization--Given that the EEOC's stakeholders 
measured the agency's success in terms of its accomplishment in 
helping to end discrimination, as opposed to the number of 
enforcement actions filed or the amount of money collected in 
such suits, the Subcommittee questioned why the agency's first 
``General Goal'' concerned enforcement rather than greater 
educational and outreach programming.
    Questionable Focus--In October 1997, the Committee heard 
and received testimony from individual victims of 
discrimination, civil rights attorneys, representatives of 
grass roots civil rights organizations, and small businessmen 
that the EEOC often gives the investigation of individual 
charges of discrimination insufficient priority in terms of 
staffing and resources, while litigation, especially high 
profile cases, has more ample staffing and funding. Despite 
this concern expresssed in a congressional hearing by many of 
the EEOC's primary stakeholders, the Subcommittee questioned 
why the agency's FY99 Performance Plan prioritized goals 
designed to increase the proportion of charge resolutions and 
cases filed in court that involved multiple parties or 
discriminatory policies.
    Lack of Detail--The EEOC's Strategic Plan for FYs 1997-2002 
discussed ``considerations that could affect achievement of 
[its] goals'' such as changes in the EEOC's statutory authority 
and in the economy. However, the agency failed to establish a 
strategy to deal with such considerations. Similarly, the 
agency's FY99 Performance Report attributes its failure to meet 
certain goals to budgetary constraints without providing 
further detail in an accounting or otherwise. The Subcommittee 
sought the agency's rationale for setting goals in its 
Strategic Plan that could not be achieved with existing 
resources, and an explanation of what steps it has taken to 
prevent this situation from reoccurring.
    Necessity of Oversight--The Subcommittee appreciated the 
EEOC's response letter that affirmed the agency's support for 
managing by results and emphasized the importance of 
quantitative, rather than qualitative, goals given its primary 
focus on enforcement functions. The EEOC Chairwoman also 
expressed her willingness to work with the Subcommittee to 
improve the agency's performance, a sentiment demonstrated by 
EEOC's discussion with Subcommittee and EER Subcommittee Staff 
in September 2000. At that meeting, the EEOC agreed to adopt 
the Subcommittee's recommendations including greater emphasis 
on: (1) its mediation program, including adding some measure of 
its success and its greater implementation as a goal; (2) 
integration of investigative and legal staff; and (3) the 
importance of managers and executives being held to performance 
standards, which filter down to all levels of employees.
            d. Oversight of the Occupational Safety and Health Review 
                    Commission
    The Subcommittee chose to send an inquiry to the 
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) 
regarding its Results Act submissions because many 
administrative law agencies have reported difficulties in 
complying with the Results Act. In its July 18, 2000 letter, 
the Subcommittee accordingly queried OSHRC on matters 
including: (1) whether the agency systemically practiced 
``management by results'' (i.e., are all operations managed by 
results or does the agency choose some but not all operations 
to manage as such); (2) whether the agency could assure the 
Subcommittee that its efforts to reach ``outcome'' goals would 
not negatively affect its ``due process'' procedures and 
practices; and (3) how the agency would gear training toward 
the individual needs of employees to avoid duplicative or 
inappropriate training programs. The Subcommittee's letter also 
expressed concerns over quality and ``due process'' in terms of 
the use of ``outcome'' goals in OSHRC's Results Act submissions 
that were particularly acute for the performance objectives 
relating to the use of its ``E-Z Trials'' program. The 
Subcommittee had heard that many OSHRC stakeholders expressed 
concern over the mandatory nature of ``E-Z Trials'', and 
indicated in its correspondence that the program might contrast 
with the agency's former rules for expedited trials that 
required agreement from both parties to enter the expedited 
system and also permitted either party to ``opt out'' as the 
expedited trial moved forward.
    OSHRC responded with a letter that addressed in detail the 
Subcommittee's concerns and expressed a willingness to continue 
this dialogue, which subsequently occurred in a meeting between 
OSHRC and Subcommittee staff where they discussed ideas to 
improve that agency's future performance through its Results 
Act submissions.

   K. OVERSIGHT INTO EFFECT ON COMMERCE OF FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES 
                                PROGRAM

1. General information

            a. Background: Jurisdictional basis for oversight
    The Subcommittee conducted four oversight hearings 
dedicated to collecting information on the effect that convict 
labor and the entry of goods made by convicts have had on the 
nation's interstate commerce. This topic represents one of the 
13 major workplace policy issues with jurisdiction specifically 
vested in the Committee. Below, the Subcommittee outlines its 
findings as a result of these four hearings during the 106th 
Congress.
            b. Background: Inmate work programs
    Prison systems at all levels use work opportunities to 
combat idleness and to impart basic work skills that contribute 
to an inmate's successful return to work upon release. Since 
1983, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has studied the 
effects of vocational training and inmate work experiences on 
post-release success. In 1997, BOP issued its recent analysis 
of the ``Post Release Employment Project'' (data covering 1984 
through 1987), which showed that work experiences have a 
positive effect on post-release employment success and that 
vocational education programs had an even greater positive 
effect.
    In most prison systems, the vast majority of inmates work 
at jobs directly related to the operation and maintenance of 
the correctional facility. A much smaller percentage of inmates 
work in prison industry programs that produce products or 
furnish services that are generally sold exclusively to 
governmental agencies. For example, within the federal prison 
system only about 17 to 20 percent of the inmates work within 
federal work programs administered by an entity created by 
Congress for that purpose, Federal Prison Industries (FPI). The 
remaining able-bodied inmates are engaged in various tasks 
relating to the operation and maintenance of their correctional 
institutions. Percentages of inmates employed by prison 
industry programs at the state and local levels tend to be 
lower than the percentage employed by FPI.
    Inmate work programs also help to reduce the costs of 
incarceration. To varying degrees, inmate labor meets the day-
to-day operational needs of correctional institutions. Most 
prison industry programs are required to cover their costs, 
including staff and inmate wages, from sales. FPI asserts that 
it is totally self-supporting, covering all its operating costs 
from its sales' revenues. As will be subsequently describe, 
FPI's critics challenge this assertion based on FPI's 
preferential status in the federal contracting process to 
include its mandatory source status and its practical control 
over the pricing in the subsequent ``sole source'' contract 
negotiation.

2. Competition from prison industry programs in interstate commerce

    While prison industry programs at the federal, state, and 
local levels presently employ only small percentages of able-
bodied inmates, together these programs are estimated to have 
generated total sales of almost $1.42 billion during 1997. For 
example, during 1997, FPI had $512.8 million in sales to 
federal agencies, making it the 37th largest federal contractor 
just behind Texas Instruments. Operating almost 100 factories 
in 27 states, FPI had 18,414 inmate workers at the end of 1997.
    Mirroring the growth of the federal inmate population, 
FPI's sales have also grown. FPI's sales amounted to $29 
million in 1960 and to $117 million in 1980. These sales grew 
to $240 million by 1985 and to $339 million by 1990 although 
total federal procurement expenditures began to drop.
    Growth in FPI sales diminishes business opportunities for 
private sector firms selling in the federal government market. 
Such diminished sales reduce work opportunities for law-abiding 
workers. FPI's unfair competition is job threatening in the 
context of a specific product targeted for an FPI expansion.

3. FPI--Mandatory source status

    FPI's sales growth would be praiseworthy if these contract 
opportunities were competitively won. Instead, FPI has been 
granted extraordinary preferential treatment in dealing with 
its federal agency ``customers''. Many state prison industry 
programs have similar preferences.
    Under FPI's 1934 authorizing statute, federal agencies are 
required to buy products offered by FPI. This is referred to as 
FPI's ``mandatory source'' status. A federal agency must obtain 
FPI's permission, referred to as a ``waiver,'' to be able to 
solicit offers to purchase competitively from the private 
sector even if a commercially available item better meets the 
agency's mission needs, can be delivered more quickly, and 
costs less.

4. FPI--Preferential status regarding contract performance

    In addition to being able to take contract opportunities on 
a non-competitive or ``sole source'' basis, FPI's authorizing 
statute also empowers FPI, rather than its federal agency 
``customers'', to determine the adequacy of FPI's own contract 
performance. Under FPI's statute, any dispute of the ``price, 
quality, character, or suitability'' of FPI products must be 
referred to a high-level arbitration panel comprised of the 
President (delegated to the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget), the Attorney General, and the 
Administrator of General Services. According to the GAO, this 
Arbitration Board has not met since the 1930s. In practical 
terms, FPI has the power to decide to its own satisfaction any 
contract performance dispute with an agency ``customer'' under 
the threat of this unworkable dispute resolution procedure.
    As previously noted, a September 1993 Department of 
Justice, Office of Legal Counsel opinion (``Application of the 
Federal Acquisition Regulations to Procurement from Federal 
Prison Industries''), unequivocally holds that FPI is not 
subject to the government-wide Federal Acquisition Regulation 
(FAR) except the provisions relating to FPI (FAR Subpart 8.6). 
Unlike a private contractor, a federal agency cannot compel FPI 
to meet the agency's contractual terms and conditions regarding 
product quality, price reasonableness, or timeliness of 
products deliveries.
    FPI is also exempted from enhanced requirements for 
assessing contractors' past performance, a key procurement 
reform of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994.

5. FPI--Unique pricing standard

    FPI's authorizing statute requires that the price FPI 
charges its federal agency customers cannot exceed a ``current 
market price,'' a term which that statute does not define. The 
term is also not defined by the FAR or its implementing 
provisions. Instead, FPI operates on the basis of a 1931 
Arbitration Board decision that says that its price meets the 
statutory ``current market price'' standard if the price it 
intends to charge its federal agency customer does not exceed 
the highest price at which a comparable product was offered to 
the government (not actually purchased). FPI makes the 
determinations as to comparability of products as well as the 
time period for which any price survey it may conduct remains 
valid.

6. FPI--Incidents of overpricing

    FPI's critics assert that this unique standard permits FPI 
to charge prices that exceed prices what an agency customer 
could obtain for comparable or higher quality products 
furnished by private sector vendors with better performance 
records in terms of timeliness of delivery and full compliance 
with the buying agency's specifications. In its defense, FPI 
asserts that it is wholly self-sufficient based on its sales 
and that it receives no appropriated funds. Nevertheless, FPI's 
critics maintain that FPI's ``self-sufficiency'' is more 
founded on its ability to overcharge its agency ``customers'' 
for products of lesser quality.
    Corroboration of FPI's overpricing is provided by 1991 
Department of Defense (DOD) Inspector General (IG) reports and 
by 1993 and 1998 GAO reports. With regard to the DOD IG, on 
October 11, 1991, the DOD IG issued Audit Report No. 92-005, 
``DOD Procurements from Federal Prison Industries,'' in 
response to a DOD IG ``hotline'' allegation. The ``hotline'' is 
a phone line in the DOD IG's office maintained to receive 
complaints of waste, fraud, and abuse from employees and the 
public. The DOD IG reviewed a sample of FPI contracts to supply 
the DOD with electronic and electrical cables over a seven-year 
period (FY84 to FY90). The audit report found overpricing in 89 
percent of the contracts that averaged 15 percent.
    In addition, on October 5, 1998, the DOD IG issued Audit 
Report No. 99-001, ``Defense Logistics Agency Procurements from 
Federal Prison Industries, Inc.'' For this report the DOD IG 
reviewed 1,786 contracts awarded during FY96 and FY97 for items 
(87 percent of the textiles) that the Defense Logistics Agency 
purchased from FPI and commercial sources. Even for textiles, 
items for which FPI is especially competitive due to its lower 
labor costs, FPI's prices were higher than commercial vendors 
in 42 percent of the contracts reviewed.
    With regard to the GAO, on July 7, 1993, it issued Report 
No. GGD 93-51R, ``FPI Systems Furniture.'' In accessing FPI 
pricing for systems furniture, the GAO compared FPI's pricing 
with the prices available from commercial vendors through the 
GSA's ``Multiple Award Schedule'' (MAS) Program. FPI's prices 
were higher than the offered prices of 9 of the 11 commercial 
systems furniture vendors under the MAS Program. Specifically, 
FPI's prices averaged 15 percent higher than the prices of the 
three commercial vendors whose sales in 1992 aggregated to 60 
percent of the systems furniture sales under the GSA MAS 
Program. Further, the three most successful commercial 
suppliers were not simply ``low-end product'' vendors. Similar 
findings regarding furniture and other products are reported in 
``Federal Prison Industries: Information on Product Pricing'' 
(GAO/GGD-98-151; August 24, 1998).

7. FPI--Incidents of late deliveries

    Problems have also been found with respect to the 
timeliness of FPI's deliveries to its federal agency customers. 
On July 31, 1998, the GAO issued ``Federal Prison Industries: 
DeliveryPerformance Improving But Problems Remain'' (GAO/GGD-
98-118; June 30, 1998) that provides current support for such 
criticism.

8. FPI--Quality problems

    While FPI asserts that it only provides quality products to 
its federal agency customers, on time, and at fair prices, FPI 
critics routinely challenge these assertions. A GAO report 
entitled, ``Federal Prison Industries: Limited Data Available 
on Customer Satisfaction'' (GAO/GGD-98-50; March 16, 1998), 
questions FPI's ability to substantiate its assertions of being 
a quality contractor. The GAO found that, ``FPI lacks 
sufficient data to support any overall conclusions about 
whether federal customers who buy and use its products and 
services are satisfied with their timeliness, price, and 
quality. FPI's management systems are not designed to 
systematically collect and analyze federal customers' views 
about its products and services.''
    A 1992 DOD IG report entitled, ``Quality Assurance Actions 
Resulting from Electronic Component Screening'' (Report No. 92-
099) corroborates assertions by FPI critics that FPI furnishes 
non-conforming products to its federal customers. During a 
review of the DOD quality assurance programs for accessing the 
quality of electronic components and cables furnished to the 
DOD during FYs 88 to 90, the DOD IG found that among the top-20 
suppliers of electronic components, FPI ranked 8th in terms of 
sales but first in terms of the number of Product Quality 
Deficiency Reports (PQDRs) identified (106 out of 170). Among 
all the contractors furnishing electronic components and cables 
to the DOD during the review period, the DOD IG identified the 
contractors with the most PQDRs: three FPI factories were among 
the top-15 poorest performers with 100 PQDRs out of 245, or 
40.1 percent of the total. The seriousness of these quality 
deficiencies is amplified by considering that many contracting 
officers do not even bother to cite FPI for quality 
deficiencies since, in practical terms, FPI determines the 
validity of any quality delinquency report made against any of 
its products.

    L. INVESTIGATION INTO GROWING LABOR SHORTAGES IN U.S. WORKFORCE

1. Background

    As America's economy continues to boom, many employers find 
themselves near economic ruin because they cannot hire enough 
workers to maintain production levels. Contrary to the DOL 
Secretary who recognizes a ``skills'' shortage, economists in 
the private and public sector have affirmed that this country 
is experiencing a labor shortage. In fact, Federal Reserve 
Board officials, including Chairman Alan Greenspan, have 
expressed concern that the shrinking pool of available workers 
cannot satisfy the global appetite for American goods and 
services. Since January 1993, employment has grown rapidly and 
20 million net new jobs have been created. Even the Department 
of Labor (DOL) has conceded that many more jobs are presently 
being created than are being lost, and that these new jobs 
``have overwhelmingly been good jobs'' with strong employment 
gains for all major subgroups of the population. Even the AFL-
CIO has conceded a workforce shortage in some fields.
    The Subcommittee has followed this workforce trend 
beginning with its research of 21st Century workforce 
challenges that served as the foundation of the ``American 
Worker Project.'' One aspect of this trend involves the 
disenfranchisement of senior citizens who are able but not 
willing to enter the workforce due to monetary restrictions 
imposed by tax laws. To encourage more Americans to enter the 
workforce, the Republican Leadership announced its commitment 
to bring legislation to eliminate the Social Security earnings 
limit to the House floor as quickly as possible. The timeliness 
of this hearing was underscored by President Clinton's then-
recent endorsement to sign such legislation into law.

2. Hearing on the state of the law

    On February 17, 2000, the Subcommittee held a hearing to 
continue the discussion of 21st Century workforce challenges 
begun by U.S. House Republicans over two years prior described 
in the American Worker Project report. This hearing produced 
for Congress information that analyzed the causes and 
consequences of worker shortages on our economy, and linked 
this problem to congressional proposals to repeal the social 
security limitation on income (to induce elderly citizens back 
into the labor force).
    A primary reason for enacting the social security earnings 
limit was to discourage retirees from taking jobs from younger 
laborers during the Great Depression, an era when America 
experienced high unemployment and a low number of available 
jobs. In the year 2000, America is no longer faced with this 
dilemma but its exact opposite: a national labor shortage. For 
this reason, the hearing sought testimony aimed at dismantling 
Depression-era laws that hinder workforce participation.
    Witnesses included labor economists and strategists whose 
testimonies related how private sector labor markets have ways 
of reducing or eliminating shortages, certainly in the long run 
and even in the short run. These witnesses included Dr. Richard 
W. Judy, a leading demographic analyst of economic and 
workforce development issues who, explained the demographic 
causes of the national labor shortage and offered workforce 
development strategies to deal with a protracted period of 
tight labor markets. Edward D. Barlow, Jr., a strategic 
planning consultant, testified on how the shrinking pool of 
available workers affect businesses nationwide, and how such 
worker dearth may threaten economic stability. Harry J. Holzer, 
a former Chief Economist at the DOL, testified about how public 
policy (i.e., providing services including job training and 
placement, transportation, and childcare) may help the private 
sector adjust to continued labor shortages.
    Witnesses also included business leaders who described how 
their industries have risen to the challenge of labor shortages 
through innovative human resource strategies. Stephen L. 
Guillard related how the increasing shortage of skilled workers 
uniquely affects the long-term care industry, which is already 
challenged by a growing elderly population, based on his 27 
years' experience in this industry. Elizabeth C. Dickson 
explained how market forces and the unavailability of U.S. 
workers have created a problem of identifying and retaining 
workers across the spectrum of skill levels based on her 
experience working with over 120 human resources professionals 
and recruiters. Valerie C. Ferguson described the hospitality 
industry's efforts to recruit and retain workers through 
community outreach programs based on her 23 years in the 
hospitality industry. Finally, Donald L. Huizenga described the 
lack of competent, qualified (i.e., drug-free) individuals 
entering the workforce based on his experience as an officer in 
an industrial manufacturing corporation.

3. Subcommittee findings

    As America continues its transition from an industrial to 
an information economy, demographic shifts and technological 
advances have created a near crisis situation for many 
businesses that have more jobs to fill than eligible 
candidates. Testimony presented at the February 17, 2000, 
hearing explained how these factors contributed to the national 
labor shortage, as follows:
    Aging Population--Americans are getting older, living 
longer, and having fewer children. By 2020, almost 20 percent 
of the U.S. population will be 65 years or older; hence, there 
will be as many Americans of retirement age as there are 20 to 
35 year olds.
    Low Growth Rate--Another significant trend affecting labor 
markets concerns the annual population and labor force growth 
rate. As America enters the 21st Century, its population is 
expected to grow at its slowest rate since the 1930s. The 
continued entry of women, immigrants, and minorities into the 
workforce is expected to keep the labor force rate above the 
population growth rate. Eliminating the Social Security 
earnings limit would allow an increasing number of Americans, 
based on this country's aging population, to enter the 
workforce.
    Technological Advances--Innovations in biotechnology, 
computing, telecommunications and their confluences have 
brought and continue to bring new services and products to the 
marketplace. The development, marketing, and servicing of ever 
more sophisticated products have created and will likely 
continue to create more jobs than the underlying technology 
will destroy.
    Globalization--Technological advances have also caused 
communications and transportation costs to plummet, ``declining 
to almost zero in the case of information exchanged on the 
internet,'' to further open global markets to American goods 
and services. Increased demand for U.S. products has caused 
many businesses to seek to expand their workforce.
    Strategies for ``labor shortage relief'' practiced by 
innovative businesses across the country focus on increased 
workforce participation and human resource innovation, as 
follows:
    Increased Workforce Participation--A first step toward 
remedying worker shortages arising from this country's aging 
population is repealing the Social Security earnings limit. 
Additionally, employers have risen to the challenge of 
recruiting and retaining older workers by offering flexible 
work arrangements such as ``telework''. Employers' recruitment 
of younger workers is increasingly focused on creating and 
participating in community outreach programs, such as high 
school apprenticeships and welfare-to-work programs.
    Human Resource Innovation--Flexible work arrangements 
including ``split shifts'' and ``telework'' enable more 
citizens, particularly those often overlooked due to age, 
disability, or family dependency (i.e., ``stay-at-home'' 
parents or family care providers), to enter the workforce. 
Employers have also attempted to expand the labor pool by 
recruiting younger workers through the creation of community 
outreach programs such as high school apprenticeships and 
welfare-to-work programs.

4. Conclusion

    Given the importance of an unfettered free market to 
America's continued economic expansion, workforce legislation 
should aim to dismantle government policies that hinder free 
market adjustments to labor shortages. Repealing the Social 
Security earnings limit is necessary not only eliminate one of 
the most unfair tax burdens placed on older Americans, but also 
to provide economic opportunity to a generation of workers who 
wish to continue the participation in or re-enter the 
workforce.

      M. THE ROLE OF ``OPEN SHOPS'' IN THE 21ST CENTURY WORKFORCE

1. Background

    It is estimated that private sector unions collect $6.3 
billion from their 8.2 million members annually, for an average 
collection of $610 per employee per year. Many of these 
employees object to union membership and their financial 
support of unions, but must join a union or maintain union 
membership as a condition of their employment. Situations where 
union membership is mandatory (e.g., an establishment in which 
an employer by agreement hires only union members in good 
standing) has come to be known as a ``closed shop.'' Situations 
where an employer, by agreement with a union, consents to 
provide financial support to that union on behalf of each of 
its employees has come to be known as a ``union security 
agreement.'' Currently, federal law and 29 states laws allow 
for union security agreements whereby the employer provides 
money to the union through payroll deductions.
    Many opponents of union security agreements seek a 
legislative solution to so-called ``forced unionism.'' On March 
21, 1995, H.R. 1279, ``National Right to Work Act'' was 
introduced and the Senate bill, S. 581, repealed sections of 
the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Railway Labor 
Act (RLA) that permitted union security agreements. This 
proposed legislation was reintroduced in the 106th Congress by 
Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) (H.R. 792) and by Senator 
Paul Coverdell (R-GA) (S.424) to ``preserve and protect the 
free choice of individuals and employees to form, join, or 
assist labor organizations, or to refrain from such 
activities.'' As of this date, both bills have been referred to 
the respective workforce subcommittees.

2. Hearing on the state of the law

    On May 3, 2000, the Subcommittee conducted a hearing to 
discuss the necessity of right-to-work legislation in the 21st 
Century. This discussion provided an opportunity for supporters 
and critics of right-to-work legislation to present their views 
of its societal and economic consequences.
    Specifically, Congressman Goodlatte testified how the 
``National Right-to-Work Act'' would amend the NLRA and the RLA 
to repeal those provisions that permit employers, pursuant to a 
union security agreement, to require employees to join a union 
as a condition of employment (including provisions permitting 
railroad carriers to require, pursuant to such an agreement, 
payroll deduction of union dues or fees as a condition of 
employment). Colorado StateRepresentative Mark Paschall 
similarly testified about right-to-work legislation that passed 
Colorado's State House but failed in its Senate.
    Reed Larson, President of the National Right to Work 
Committee testified about his responsibilities to an 
organization dedicated to raising awareness of and garnering 
support for federal and state right-to-work laws. He testified 
that laws requiring ``forced unionism'' tarnish the American 
tradition of individual liberty by stripping workers of their 
right to join or not join a union.
    Presenting the views of the AFL-CIO, attorney Jeremiah 
Collins testified, in part, on the ``great responsibility'' 
incumbent upon any union that is designated as the employees' 
exclusive bargaining representatives to fairly and equitably 
represent all employees, union and nonunion, within the 
relevant bargaining unit.

3. Subcommittee findings and conclusion

    Based on the testimony presented at the hearing, the 
Subcommittee found that union security agreements commonly: (1) 
inhibit the operation of a free market economy; (2) harm 
employees by denying them economic and ideological choice; and 
(3) inhibit democracy in the workforce. According to 
Representative Goodlatte, even Samuel Gompers, founder of the 
American Federation of Labor and grandfather of the American 
trade union movement, stated that ``workers in America adhere 
to voluntary institutions in preference to compulsory systems 
which are not only impractical, but a menace to their welfare 
and their liberty.'' The testimony presented at and the 
findings generated from the hearing may serve as the foundation 
for future legislation promoting employee choice in the 
workplace on issues ranging from bargaining rights and 
responsibilities to payroll deductions.

             II. Special Investigations of the Subcommittee


 A. INVESTIGATION OF THE FINANCIAL, OPERATING AND POLITICAL AFFAIRS OF 
               THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

1. Background

    The International Brotherhood of Teamsters (``Teamsters'' 
or ``IBT''), historically considered among the most powerful 
labor unions in the United States, has operated under a 
``Consent Order'' for 12 years. A Consent Order is a 
voluntarily agreement, supervised by the judicial system, 
generally entered into to avoid further, more serious legal 
action. In this case, the Consent Order required the Teamsters 
to conduct a secret ballot election (the first in Teamster's 
history), establish a system for federal supervision of that 
and possible future elections, and create a federal 
investigation office to identify and act upon criminal 
influence in the union. In addition, the Consent Order laid the 
foundation for the creation of an Independent Review Board 
(IRB), a panel that would take over the investigative and 
monitoring function following the 1991 election. Ron Carey, a 
self-professed ``reform candidate,'' was the victor in the 1991 
election.
    The next Teamster election, however, in 1996, was marred 
with charges of illegal fundraising activities. These charges 
were filed with the federal election officer and triggered an 
investigation by that office. Following the investigation of 
the charges, the 1996 election results were overturned and 
later, the incumbent President, Ron Carey, was removed from 
office and banned from the union for life. A re-run election 
that followed saw James P. Hoffa certified as the new President 
of the union. Because the federal supervision had been funded 
in large part by public funds, Congress began an investigation 
of these and other related charges pertaining to the possible 
misuse of pension fund monies and general financial 
mismanagement of the union. Republican concern focused on the 
adequacy of federal labor laws to prevent the looting of rank 
and file monies.

2. Final report issued

    On February 24, 1999, the Subcommittee released its Report 
on the Financial, Operating and Political Affairs of the 
International Brotherhood of Teamsters. The report, approved by 
a voice vote of the Subcommittee, was the culmination of an 
investigation conducted during the 105th Congress that was 
triggered by widespread fraud in the Teamsters' 1996 officer 
election. That election, which cost approximately $18 million 
to conduct and supervise, was funded by taxpayer dollars as 
mandated by a consent agreement between the union and the 
government entered into in 1989 in settlement of a racketeering 
lawsuit.
    The Subcommittee's report highlights a profound lack of 
accountability by the administration of former Teamster 
president Ron Carey. The report details financial 
mismanagement, abuses of power, and illegal and improper 
activities during the 1996 election. The report also points out 
deficiencies in the financial reporting system in place at the 
Department of Labor. The forms unions are required to submit 
annually to DOL do not present a true and accurate picture of a 
union's financial affairs and are misleading to rank-and-file 
union members.
    The report explains how the Subcommittee's investigation 
was limited by the uncooperative stance taken by the union and 
also in deference to the criminal investigation being conducted 
by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. The 
Subcommittee refrained from questioning certain witnesses and 
pursuing various lines of inquiry based on the Department of 
Justice's concerns that such action would jeopardize their 
criminal investigation. The Subcommittee's report expressed 
concern over the apparent lack of progress in DOJ's 
investigation despite assurances that it was ongoing and very 
active. In reality, it appears that high-ranking union 
officials, third party political organizations, and officials 
at the DNC, all implicated in the illegal activities 
surrounding the 1996 Teamsters election, have escaped serious 
scrutiny by the Department of Justice.
    The report concludes by providing several recommendations 
that would help improve the Teamsters' internal financial 
controls and other governing structures; changes that would 
move the Teamsters closer to true self-governance and ensure 
that the union is accountable to rank-and-file members.

3. Oversight of rerun election

    The Subcommittee closely monitored the progress of the IBT 
rerun election to ensure that it was conducted fairly. 
Throughout the process, Chairman Hoekstra frequently consulted 
with Michael Cherkasky, the Election Officer, and visited the 
ballot count site as the votes were being tallied. Mr. 
Cherkasky, who appeared before the Subcommittee twice during 
the 105th Congress, testified again on April 29, 1999 about the 
completion of the rerun election. Mr. Cherkasky believed that 
supervision was essential. He stated, ``having the election 
supervised by an independent authority enhanced the credibility 
and legitimacy of the results. Where there is independent 
supervision, conducted with integrity, the members and the 
candidates know that the results are trustworthy and were not 
foreordained by the entrenched powers of the union or, as used 
to be the case at the IBT, by organized crime. In the 
supervised environment, members and candidates learned exactly 
what it means to campaign, compete, and vote freely.''

4. Local 560 case study

    Teamsters Local 560 in Union City, New Jersey was at one 
time a symbol of the power and arrogance that organized crime 
had achieved in this country. For more than thirty years, the 
notorious Provenzano family, led by Anthony Provenzano or 
``Tony Pro'', dominated Local 560. The Provenzanos, who were 
linked to the Genovese crime family, used Local 560 to carry 
out a full range of criminal activities, including murder, 
extortion, loan sharking, kickbacks, hijacking, and gambling. 
Anthony Provenzano, who died in prison in 1988, is allegedly 
linked to the 1975 disappearance of James R. Hoffa.
    In 1982, the U.S. Department of Justice, in a novel attempt 
to clean up Local 560, filed a civil RICO lawsuit against 
twelve individuals, including the Provenzanos and the members 
of the Union's Executive Board. This lawsuit was the first of 
its kind against a union. The government alleged that these 
individuals had violated the RICO statute by engaging in a 
pattern of racketeering activity, which included murder, 
numerous acts of extortion, and labor racketeering. After a 
lengthy court trial and exhaustion of all appeals, Local 560 
was placed into a trusteeship on June 23, 1986.
    On February 25, 1999, after nearly thirteen years of close 
government oversight, a federal judge in New Jersey ended the 
trusteeship at Local 560 and returned the Union to its members. 
When the Court first imposed this trusteeship back in 1986, no 
one envisioned that it would take more than a decade to 
eliminate racketeering and restore the democratic process to 
the local. The job proved to be a major challenge and required 
an evolution of change in the entire culture of the union.
    The Subcommittee held a hearing on June 30, 1999 in an 
effort to learn more about the Local 560 clean up effort, 
specifically, what worked, what didn't work, and what criteria 
was used to determine that the trusteeship should be lifted. 
The Subcommittee heard from a distinguished panel of witnesses: 
(1) Edwin Stier--court-appointed trustee of Local 560; (2) Pete 
Brown--newly elected Local 560 president; and (3) Dr. Linda 
Kaboolian--Associate Professor of Public Policy at Harvard 
University's JFK School of Government. The information gained 
at the hearing should prove helpful as the Subcommittee 
continues to monitor the Teamsters International Union and the 
1989 Consent Decree.

5. Continued oversight of International Brotherhood of Teamsters

    With the completion of a second democratic election at the 
IBT, the Subcommittee attempted to learn from the Department of 
Justice what the future holds for further government 
supervision under the Consent Decree, including the next IBT 
election in 2001. In a May 5, 1999 letter, Chairman Hoekstra 
invited Mary Jo White, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District 
of New York, to testify at a Subcommittee hearing. 
Unfortunately, she declined the invitation citing the ongoing 
nature of the case.
    On March 28, 2000, President James P. Hoffa appeared before 
the Subcommittee and personally thanked Republican Members of 
the Committee on behalf of the union's rank and file for its 
oversight efforts. He also informed the Subcommittee that the 
union had largely followed its recommendations for change and 
that such implementation would continue.
    The Subcommittee continues to monitor the progress of the 
Teamsters Union and the status of government supervision under 
the 1989 Consent Decree. The Subcommittee is closely following 
the reforms being put in place by James P. Hoffa and the other 
newly elected Teamster leaders.

                       B. AMERICAN WORKER PROJECT

1. Summary

    On August 3, 1999, 24 months after the Committee on House 
Oversight first commissioned the Subcommittee's ``American 
Worker Project,'' the Subcommittee issued its Report of the 
American Worker Project: Securing the Future of America's 
Working Families.''
    The purpose of the project was to examine the current state 
of the American workplace and investigate innovative workplaces 
and initiatives that enhance the American workplace and serve 
as models for change. The investigators studied federal 
workplace policies that negatively affect both the American 
worker and the workplace; and identified changes that would 
enhance the work environment. Recommendations and suggestions 
for change to current American labor law were made 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.

2. Summary of report

            a. Trends of the future
    It is always best to have an idea of what the future will 
look like before crafting public policy for the future. After 
reviewing available sources of information on the future of 
America's workforce, the American Worker Project identified key 
trends of the 21st Century workforce, including:
            i. 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). Until 2010, the elderly 
population is projected to grow more slowly than ever before in 
U.S. history--it will only increase 1.3 percent annually, a 
decrease from the average annual growth of 2.3 percent from 
1950 to 1990. After 2010, however, the elderly population will 
increase dramatically from representing 13.2 percent in 2010 to 
20 percent 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 immeasurable 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. Policymakers 
must decide how to encourage the active participation and 
acceptance of the elderly in the workforce. There are several 
reasons for this: (1) retired people usually depend on society 
more than the working elderly do; (2) employers need to view 
the elderly as valuable resources; and (3) 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.
            ii. 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 percent. In 
2006, it is expected to be 73 percent. In 1986, the Hispanic 
share of the workforce was 7 percent. In 2006, it is expected 
to be 12 percent. In 1986, Asians, Pacific Islanders, American 
Indians, and Alaska Natives accounted for 3 percent of the 
workforce. In 2006, they will account for nearly 5.5 percent 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.
            iii. 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 percent. Between 1996-2006, the rate is expected to 
decline to 1.1 percent annually. The labor force rate will 
decline primarily due to a decrease in annual growth of 
population expected to hover around .8 percent 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.
            iv. Rapid technological change
    The Technological Revolution continues to change almost 
every facet of American society. The microchip, the driving 
force behind the 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 
transmitsinformation 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.
            v. 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:
    First, it has reduced time and operating costs for helping 
ships and aircraft navigate more efficiently. Secondly, precise 
information on the location of goods and materials obtained 
through telecommunications will reduce transport, storage, and 
handling costs. Thirdly, 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. 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. Recommendations of the American worker project

            Making America the most effective work environment in the 
                    world--seven priorities
    America's labor laws should be updated to reflect new 
realities in today's workplace so that American workers remain 
the most competitive, best skilled, and highest paid workers in 
the world. America's labor law must be efficient and effective, 
so that our workers can compete in the global marketplace. 
Toward that end, the AWP report's recommendations include the 
following:
    (1) Changing Depression-era workplace laws to improve 
workplace flexibility for high-tech and other American 
industries;
    (2) Streamlining federal and state laws to eliminate 
contradictory provisions and reduce regulatory costs;
    (3) Allowing employees to carry a range of vested benefits 
from job to job for the duration of their careers;
    (4) Updating the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure 
Act to ensure that union members have access to timely and 
accurate union financial information;
    (5) Considering new approaches to government enforcement to 
battle the resurgence of sweatshops in the apparel industry;
    (6) Improving the nation's education systems to better 
prepare students for the workplace; and
    (7) Revising tax and workplace laws to encourage 
opportunities for life-long learning.

4. Hearings and public forums

    The American Worker Project held 13 hearings and 30 
roundtable discussions during the study. Participants ranged 
from union rank and file members to corporate executives.

                 III. Hearings Held by the Subcommittee


106th Congress, First Session

    March 25, 1999--Hearing on Latex Allergies and the Health 
Care Industry: Do OSHA's Actions Confuse or Clarify? (106-16).
    April 19, 1999--Field Hearing on Chicago Education Reforms 
and the Importance of Flexibility in Federal Education 
Programs, Chicago, IL (106-28).
    April 21, 1999--Hearing on Federal Prison Industries: 
Impact on Law-Abiding Workers of Claimed Authority to Sell 
Services in the Commercial Market and Proposed Regulatory 
Expansion (106-25).
    April 29, 1999--Hearing on the International Brotherhood of 
Teamsters Rerun Election (106-27).
    May 5, 1999--Hearing on the Fiscal Year 1998 Audit of the 
Corporation for National Service (106-32).
    May 12, 1999--Hearing to Review the Management of the Year 
2000 Computer Problem (106-36).
    May 27, 1999--Hearing on the Review and Oversight of the 
1998 Reading Results of the National Assessment of Educational 
Progress (NAEP)--The Nation's Report Card (106-44).
    June 22, 1999--Hearing on the Review and Oversight of the 
Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (106-49).
    June 30, 1999--Hearing on Lessons Learned from the 
Teamsters Local 560 Trusteeship (106-52).
    July 21, 1999--Hearing on the Effect of Davis-Bacon Helper 
Rules on Job Opportunities in Construction (106-62).
    September 8, 1999--Field Hearing on Improving Student 
Achievement and Reforming the Federal Role in Education, Battle 
Creek, MI (106-72).
    September 14, 1999--Hearing on the Failed Promise of the 
Corporation for National Service (106-74).
    September 24, 1999--Recommendations for Changes in the 
Federal Prison Industries Program (106-75).
    October 14, 1999--Hearing on How the Quality of Grant 
Performance is Assessed at the U.S. Department of Labor (106-
77).
    October 28, 1999--Hearing on Telework: Impact on Workplace 
Policy in the U.S. (106-79).
    December 6, 1999--Financial Management Practices of the 
Department of Education (106-80).

106th Congress, Second Session

    January 24, 2000--Field Hearing on Dropout Prevention, 
Albuquerque, New Mexico (106-86).
    January 25, 2000--Field Hearing on the Impact of Federal 
Policies on State and Local Efforts to Reform Education, 
Lakewood, CO (106-82).
    January 28, 2000--Hearing on OSHA Policy Concerning 
Employees Working At Home (106-81).
    February 17, 2000--Hearing on 21st Century Worker Shortages 
(106-89).
    March 1, 2000--Hearing on Financial Management at the 
Department of Education (106-93).
    March 3, 2000--Hearing on Charter Schools: Successes and 
Challenges (106-91).
    March 27, 2000--Field Hearing on Putting Performance First: 
Academic Accountability and School Choice in Florida, Temple 
Terrace, Florida (106-100).
    March 28, 2000--The International Brotherhood of Teamsters 
One Year After the Election Of James P. Hoffa (106-97).
    April 4, 2000--Hearing on the Fiscal Year 1999 Audit of the 
Corporation for National Service (106-99).
    April 5, 2000--Under the Radar Screen Rulemaking at the 
U.S. Department of Labor: OSHA's Employee Work-At-Home Policy 
and Beyond (106-101).
    May 3, 2000--Hearing on Open Shops in the 21st Century 
Workplace (106-105).
    June 6, 2000--Field Hearing on School Choice and Parental 
Involvement, Bloomington, MN (106-111).
    June 27, 2000--Consultation with the Employment Standards 
Administration, United States Department of Labor, on 
Submissions Under the Government Performance and Results Act 
(Results Act) (106-114).
    September 19, 2000--Hearing on Financial Management Issues 
at the Department of Education (106-122).
    September 26, 2000--Federal Prison Industries (FPI): 
Diverting Federal Property from Computers for Learning and 
Other Programs to Expand FPI'S Commercial Sales (106-128).
    September 29, 2000--Behavioral Drugs in Schools: Questions 
and Concerns (106-130).
    October 4, 2000--Safety in Study Abroad Programs (106-132).
    October 5, 2000--Hearing on Federal Prison Industries: 
Proposed Military Clothing Production Expansion-Assessing 
Existing Protection for Workers, Business, and FPI'S Federal 
Agency Customers (106-133).

                  IV. Markups Held by the Subcommittee


106th Congress, First Session

    February 24, 1999--Subcommittee adopted the ``Report on the 
Financial, Operating and Political Affairs of the International 
Brotherhood of Teamsters'' by voice vote.

                       V. Subcommittee Statistics

Total Number of Hearings..........................................    34
    Field.........................................................     7
    Joint with Other Committees...................................     0
Total Number of Subcommittee Markup Sessions......................     1

                             MINORITY VIEWS

Committee on Education and the Workforce Activity Report, December 28, 
                                  2000

    It is evident that the Education and the Workforce engaged 
in lots of activity during the 106th Congress, but 
unfortunately produced few results. The Republican-led Congress 
failed to pass a modest increase in the minimum wage. It failed 
to take action on a bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights to 
insure doctors, not insurance companies, make life and death 
health care decisions for patients. It failed, for the first 
time in 35 years, to pass the reauthorization of the Elementary 
Secondary Education Act, the nation's flagship education 
support program for public schools. And of course, it failed to 
pass the Juvenile crime and prevention reauthorization, despite 
substantial bipartisan support and overwhelming community 
support.
    I am pleased, however, that the Appropriations Committee--
despite vigorous opposition by almost every Republican member 
of the Education and Workforce Committee--included funding for 
a new, emergency repair and renovation program to fix leaky 
roofs, faulty wiring, remove lead paint, and other urgent 
repairs for our elementary and secondary schools. I am also 
pleased that the Appropriations Committee funded the third year 
of the Clinton/Clay class size reduction program--insuring 
almost 50,000 new, highly qualified teachers will be supported 
next year. Every child is entitled to go to a safe school with 
small class sizes, that has well-prepared teachers, teaching in 
well-maintained classrooms.
                                           William L. Clay,
                                         Ranking Democratic Member.

                                  
