[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.