[House Report 108-813]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Union Calendar No. 498
108th Congress
2d Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Report
108-813
_______________________________________________________________________
REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES
of the
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND
THE WORKFORCE
during the
108th Congress
January 3, 2005.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
One Hundred Eighth Congress
----------
JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice GEORGE MILLER, California
Chairman DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey
California LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas
SAM JOHNSON, Texas CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana \2\ RON KIND, Wisconsin
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
FRED UPTON, Michigan LORETTA SANCHEZ, California \2\
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan DAVID WU, Oregon
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia SUSAN A. DAVIS, Californai
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois \4\
PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio ED CASE, Hawaii
RIC KELLER, Florida RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona
TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska DENISE L. MAJETTE, Georgia
JOE WILSON, South Carolina CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland \4\
TOM COLE, Oklahoma TIM RYAN, Ohio
JON C. PORTER, Nevada TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York \5\
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE, Colorado
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia \1\
MAX BURNS, Georgia \3\
Paula Nowakowski, Staff Director
----------
\1\ Appointed February 11, 2003.
\2\ Resigned February 12, 2003.
\3\ Appointed February 12, 2003.
\4\ Appointed February 13, 2003.
\5\ Appointed March 5, 2003.
STANDING SUBCOMMITTEES
----------
Subcommittee on Select Education
PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan, Chairman \1\
JON PORTER, Nevada, Vice Chairman RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia TIM RYAN, Ohio
MAX BURNS, Georgia GEORGE MILLER, California, ex
JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, ex officio officio
------
Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness
HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, California, Chairman
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia, Vice DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
Chairman JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachuesetts
JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio RON KIND, Wisconsin
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin DAVID WU, Oregon
MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey
SAM JOHNNSON, Texas BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
FRED UPTON, Michigan CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan CRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio TIM RYAN, Ohio
RIC KELLER, Florida MAJOR OWENS, New York
TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
TOM COLE, Oklahoma ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey
JON C. PORTER, Nevada RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas GEORGE MILLER, California, ex
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia officio
MAX BURNS, Georgia
------
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia, Chairman
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois, Vice MAJOR OWENS, New York
Chairman DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan DENISE L. MAJETTE, Georgia
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
RIC KELLER, Florida TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota GEORGE MILLER, California, ex
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee officio
JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, ex officio
------
Subcommittee on Education Reform
MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware, Chairman
TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska, Vice LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
Chairman SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
FRED UPTON, Michigan ED CASE, Hawaii
VERNON J. EHLER, Michigan RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina RON KIND, Wisconsin
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
RIC KELLER, Florida DENISE L. MAJETTE, Georgia
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GEORGE MILLER, California, ex
MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE, Colorado officio
JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, ex officio
------
Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations
SAM JOHNSON, Texas, Chairman
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina, Vice ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey
Chairman DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
California DAVID WU, Oregon
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey
PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
JOE WILSON, South Carolina ED CASE, Hawaii
TOM COLE, Oklahoma RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota GEORGE MILLER, California, ex
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas officio
MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE, Colorado
MARSHA BALCKBURN, Tennessee
----------
\1\ Resigned as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Select Education on
September 10, 2004.
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Education
and the Workforce,
Washington, DC, January 3, 2005.
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 108th Congress. I
circulated this report to all members of the Committee on
December 21, 2004, and received no views before transmitting
this report to the House today.
This report summarizes the activities of the Committee and
its subcommittees with respect to its legislative and oversight
responsibilities
Sincerely,
John A. Boehner, Chairman.
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Introduction....................................................XI-XIII
Summary........................................................XIII-XIV
Full Committee................................................... 1-75
I. Summary of Activities.........................................1-53
A. Full Committee Accomplishments (Part 1): Defining the
Knowledge Economy.................................... 1-3
B. Full Committee Accomplishments (Part 2): Education
Policy............................................... 3-38
HIGHLIGHTS: Education Accomplishments, January 2003-
December 2004............................................ 4-38
Improving Academic Results for Students with Disabilities 4-5
Combating Childhood Obesity & Enhancing Integrity in
School Lunch & Nutrition Programs...................... 5
Improving Access to Assistive Technology for Individuals
With Disabilities...................................... 5-6
Expanding School Choice for Low-Income Families.......... 6-9
Strengthening Teacher Training & Teacher Colleges........ 9-10
Revamping International Education & Renewing Graduate
Education Programs..................................... 10
Improving Academic & Financial Accountability in Early
Childhood Programs..................................... 11-14
Efforts To Expand College Access for Low and Middle-
Income Students........................................ 14-15
Higher Education Reauthorization Hearings................ 15-16
The College Cost Crisis.................................. 16-18
Prioritizing College Access for Current and Future
Students............................................... 18-19
The College Access & Opportunity Act..................... 19-20
Closing the Graduation Gap in American Higher Education.. 20-21
Ending Excess Subsidies for Student Loan Providers &
Expanding Loan Relief for Teachers..................... 21-22
Reducing Pell Grant Fraud................................ 22
The FED UP Initiative.................................... 22-23
Supporting High Quality Teachers......................... 23-24
Accountability in Federal Education Spending............. 24-28
Supporting Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act
of 2001 (NCLB)......................................... 28-35
Revamping the No Child Left Behind Website............... 35
Improving Results and Local Control in Vocational and
Technical Education.................................... 35-36
Boosting America's Armed Forces.......................... 36-37
Strengthening Libraries & Museums........................ 37-38
Fighting Child Abuse and Family Violence................. 38
C. Full Committee Accomplishments (Part 3): Workforce
Policy............................................... 39-50
HIGHLIGHTS: Workforce Accomplishments, January 2003-
December 2004............................................ 39-50
Protecting Worker Pensions and Retirement Security....... 40-41
Strengthening America's Job Training System.............. 41-42
Expanding Health Care Access for Working Families........ 42
Providing Personal Reemployment Accounts for Workers..... 42-43
Building on the Success of the 1996 Welfare Reform Law... 43
Protecting Workers' Right to Overtime Pay................ 43-44
Strengthening Employment Rights for Military Reservists
and Veterans........................................... 44-45
Ensuring Timely Delivery of Workers' Compensation
Benefits for Energy Employees.......................... 45
Strengthening Union Democracy and Improving
Accountability & Transparency on Behalf of Union
Members................................................ 45-46
Promoting Efforts To Give ``Family Time'' Options to
Working Mothers and Fathers............................ 46-47
Examining the Promise and Implications of Genetic Testing 47
Investigating Questionable Stock Transactions at ULLICO
Inc.................................................... 47-48
Enhancing Worker Safety & Fairness for Small Businesses.. 48-49
Supporting Efforts To Preserve Retiree Health Care
Benefits............................................... 49
Preserving Mental Health Parity Benefits Through ERISA... 49-50
Promoting Worker Safety and Preserving Traditions in
Religious Communities.................................. 50
D. Oversight Plan and Activities During the 108th
Congress............................................. 50-53
General Oversight Responsibilities....................... 51
Exercise of Oversight Responsibilities................... 51-53
II. Hearings Held by the Committee...............................53-54
108th Congress, First Session............................ 53
108th Congress, Second Session........................... 53-54
III. Markups Held by the Committee................................54-55
108th Congress, First Session............................ 54-55
108th Congress, Second Session........................... 55
IV. Legislative Activities.......................................55-75
A. Legislation Enacted Into Law (Bills Referred To
Committee)........................................... 55-57
B. Legislation Enacted Into Law (Bills Not Referred To
Committee)........................................... 57-60
C. Legislation Passed the House (Bills Referred to
Committee)........................................... 60-67
D. Legislation Passed the House In Another Measure....... 67-69
E. Legislation Passed the House (Bills Not Referred to
Committee)........................................... 69-72
F. Legislation With Filed Committee Reports.............. 72-73
G. Legislation Ordered Reported From Full Committee...... 73-74
108th Congress, First Session............................ 73-74
108th Congress, Second Session........................... 74
H. Conference Reports Filed With Education and the
Workforce Members Appointed as Conferees............. 74
I. Conferences With Education and the Workforce Members
Appointed as Conferees............................... 74-75
V. Committee on Education and the Workforce Statistics.............75
A. General Statistics on Referred Matters................ 75
B. Not Referred Matters Containing Committee's
Jurisdiction......................................... 75
Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations......................75-101
I. Summary of Activities.......................................75-100
Protecting Worker Pensions and Enhancing Retirement
Security................................................. 76-85
Helping Workers Adequately Prepare for Retirement........ 76-77
Examining the Financial Condition of the Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation................................... 77-78
Witnesses Warn Loss of Cash Balance Plans Would
Jeopardize the Future of the Defined Benefit System.... 78-80
Short-Term Pension Fix Highlights Need for Permanent
Solutions.............................................. 80-81
Long-Term Defined Benefit Reforms Will Help Prepare
Workers for a Secure Retirement........................ 82-84
Defined Contribution Reforms To Help Workers Protect &
Expand Their 401(k) Accounts........................... 84-85
Expanding Health Care Access for Working Families.......... 86-88
Responding to the Health Care Needs of Uninsured Working
Families............................................... 86-87
Examining Innovative Steps Employers Are Voluntarily
Taking To Provide Workers With Quality Health Care
Benefits............................................... 87-88
Strengthening Union Democracy and Improving Accountability
& Transparency on Behalf of Union Members................ 88-95
New Union Democracy Reforms Critical To Enhance Union
Leadership Accountability, Financial Transparency...... 88-89
Union Democracy Reforms Critical To Ensure Accountability
and Transparency....................................... 89-91
Examining Efforts To Undermine the Secret Ballot Election
Process................................................ 91-94
Examining Union Salting Abuses That Harm U.S. Economy.... 94-95
Investigating Questionable Stock Transactions at ULLICO
Inc...................................................... 96-97
Supporting Efforts To Preserve Retiree Health Care Benefits 97-98
Examining the Promise and Implications of Genetic Testing..99-100
II. Hearings Held by the Subcommittee..........................100-101
108th Congress, First Session............................ 100
108th Congress, Second Session..........................100-101
III. Markups Held by the Subcommittee...............................101
108th Congress, First Session............................ 101
IV. Subcommittee Statistics........................................101
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections...........................101-114
I. Summary of Activities......................................101-113
Enhancing Worker Safety, Promoting Fairness for Small
Businesses..............................................102-104
Updating Outdated Labor Laws To Guarantee Overtime
Protections for Millions of Americans...................104-106
Letting Busy Working Mothers and Fathers Choose More Time
With Family.............................................106-108
Ensuring Timely Delivery of Workers' Compensation Benefits
for Energy Employees....................................108-109
Promoting Worker Safety and Preserving Traditions in
Religious Communities...................................109-110
Subcommittee Examines Keller Bill To Help Restore U.S. Jobs
in the Recreational Boating Industry....................110-111
Subcommittee Examines Effectiveness of Federal Employees'
Compensation Act........................................111-113
II. Hearings Held by the Subcommittee..........................113-114
108th Congress, First Session............................ 113
108th Congress, Second Session..........................113-114
III. Markups Held by the Subcommittee...............................114
108th Congress, First Session............................ 114
IV. Subcommittee Statistics........................................114
Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness....................114-138
I. Summary of Activities......................................114-137
Efforts to Expand College Access for Low and Middle-Income
Students................................................115-124
The College Cost Crisis.................................115-119
Expanding College Access for Low and Middle-Income
Students..............................................119-123
Helping Parents and Students Hold Colleges and
Universities Accountable..............................123-124
Protecting Taxpayers Against Diploma Mills................124-125
Questioning the High Cost of College Textbooks............125-126
Strengthening Teacher Training & Teacher Colleges.........126-128
Strengthening America's Job Training Programs.............128-130
Providing Personal Reemployment Accounts to Job Seekers...130-132
Building on the Successes of the 1996 Welfare Reform Law..132-135
TANF Block Grant and Work Requirements..................132-134
Improving Child Care for Families.......................134-135
Improving Access to Assistive Technology for Individuals
With Disabilities.......................................135-136
Hearings on Safety in America's Classrooms................136-137
II. Hearings Held by the Subcommittee..........................137-138
108th Congress, First Session............................ 137
108th Congress, Second Session........................... 138
III. Markups Held by the Subcommittee...............................138
108th Congress, First Session............................ 138
108th Congress, Second Session........................... 138
IV. Subcommittee Statistics........................................138
Subcommittee on Education Reform................................138-161
I. Summary of Activities......................................138-160
Improving Academic Results for Students With Disabilities.139-142
Protecting Parents From Being Forced To Medicate Their
Children................................................142-143
Combating Childhood Obesity & Enhancing Integrity in School
Lunch and Nutrition Programs............................143-146
Improving Academic Results & Financial Accountability in
Early Childhood Programs................................146-155
Improving Results and Local Control in Vocational and
Technical Education.....................................155-157
Enhancing Financial Literacy, Helping Students Plan for the
Future..................................................157-158
Supporting Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act
of 2001 (NCLB)..........................................158-159
Providing Assistance to Low-Income Families...............159-160
II. Hearings Held by the Subcommittee..........................160-161
108th Congress, First Session............................ 160
108th Congress, Second Session..........................160-161
III. Markups Held by the Subcommittee...............................161
108th Congress, First Session............................ 161
108th Congress, Second Session........................... 161
IV. Subcommittee Statistics........................................161
Subcommittee on Select Education................................161-172
I. Summary of Activities......................................161-171
Revamping International Programs in Higher Education......162-164
Renewing Graduate Education Programs......................165-168
Supporting Minority Serving Institutions..................168-169
Protecting Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Youth..........169-170
Monitoring Financial Management at the U.S. Department of
Education...............................................170-171
II. Hearings Held by the Subcommittee..............................171
108th Congress, First Session............................ 171
III. Markups Held by the Subcommittee...............................171
108th Congress, First Session............................ 171
IV. Subcommittee Statistics....................................171-172
INTRODUCTION
The Committee on Education and the Workforce, under the
leadership of Chairman John Boehner (R-OH), worked tirelessly
with President George W. Bush during the 108th Congress to
maximize security and prosperity for American families in a
changing economy.
The Committee and its five subcommittees oversee education
and workforce programs that affect and support hundreds of
millions of Americans, from school teachers and small business
operators to students and retirees. In a changing economy
increasingly driven by technology, competition, and knowledge,
the Education and the Workforce Committee worked during 2003
and 2004 to build on vital reforms set in motion by President
Bush during the previous Congress--pressing for constant
improvement in education; modernization of outdated federal
rules that stifle freedom and innovation; and secure access to
health care, retirement security, and training for American
workers.
During the 108th Congress--working with President Bush, his
administration, and other members of the House--the Education
and the Workforce Committee:
Enacted bipartisan legislation to renew and reform
federal special education laws, improve education results for
children with disabilities, and reduce the paperwork burden on
special education teachers.
Enacted reforms to fight childhood obesity and
enhance integrity in school lunch and nutrition programs
Protected workers' retirement savings by enacting
pension reforms, including a short-term replacement for the 30-
year Treasury bond interest rate used by employers to determine
pension fund contributions, and passing legislation to give
workers more control over their 401(k) plans and better access
to quality investment advice.
Held eight hearings on the underfunding problems
ailing today's defined benefit pension system in preparation
for the introduction of comprehensive legislation to reform and
strengthen defined benefit pension plans for workers and
employers.
Provided school choice scholarships to low-income
families in the District of Columbia through the creation of
the first federally-funded private school choice program.
Passed legislation to strengthen the nation's job
training system to benefit more than 18 million American
workers.
Created new incentives for highly qualified
teachers to teach in poor rural and urban (Title I) schools, by
dramatically expanding federal student loan relief for
qualified math, science, and special education teachers.
Passed bipartisan legislation to expand health
care access for working families through association health
plans (AHPs).
Helped the U.S. Department of Labor establish
personal reemployment accounts for American workers seeking new
and better jobs.
Passed legislation through the House to strengthen
academic and financial accountability in the federal Head Start
early childhood program, exposing chronic abuses that are
cheating children, taxpayers, teachers, and law-abiding
grantees.
Passed legislation to strengthen and extend the
successful 1996 welfare reform law.
Fought to pass legislation to reauthorize the
Higher Education Act by strengthening Pell Grants, student aid,
student access, and minority serving institutions; reducing
loan costs, fees, and red tape for students and graduates;
removing barriers for non-traditional students; permanently
ending excess taxpayer subsidies for student loan providers;
and empowering parents and students through ``sunshine'' and
transparency in college costs and accreditation.
Fought to give overtime protections to millions of
American workers who are currently denied overtime pay because
of outdated labor laws.
Conducted nine oversight hearings to study the
progress states and local schools are making in implementing
the bipartisan No Child Left Behind education reforms proposed
by President Bush and passed by the Committee in 2001.
Passed legislation through the House to revamp
international education programs to meet the realities of the
post-9/11 era, and renew graduate education programs.
Protected and clarified the employment rights of
military veterans and reservists returning from active duty.
Passed legislation through the Committee to
improve accountability, results, and local control in
vocational and technical education.
Passed legislation through the House to enhance
worker safety and fairness for small businesses.
Passed legislation through the House to ensure
ROTC and military recruiters have the same access to college
students as other employers.
Supported the implementation of new Labor
Department regulations on union transparency, giving rank-and-
file union members more detailed information about the
financial activities of their unions, and passed legislation
through subcommittee to further support this goal.
Enacted legislation allowing the U.S. Secretary of
Education to excuse military personnel from federal student
loan obligations while on active duty.
Fought to give busy private sector mothers and
fathers the option of choosing more time off with their
families, a right already enjoyed by government workers.
Enacted legislation renewing and strengthening
federal support for libraries and museums, which play a vital
role in educating children.
Used the hearing process to examine the promises
and implications of genetic testing for both workers and
employers.
Passed legislation through the House to strengthen
teaching training programs and teacher colleges.
Investigated questionable stock transactions at
the union-owned life insurance company ULLICO Inc. and their
potential impact on workers, calling on the U.S. Department of
Labor to look into possible violations of federal labor and
pension protection laws.
Extended tax relief for school teachers, allowing
school teachers to continue to deduct up to $250 a year for
out-of-pocket classroom expenses such as books and crayons.
Enacted legislation to allow religious communities
to continue their traditional way of training their children in
a craft or occupation while ensuring the safety of those who
are employed in woodworking occupations.
Ensured that increases in federal education
spending were accompanied by meaningful accountability for
results.
Enacted legislation to transfer authority for
administering energy employees' workers' compensation benefits
to the Department of Labor, ensuring that worker benefits are
delivered on a timely and consistent basis.
Enacted legislation to protect children by helping
to prevent child abuse and family violence before it occurs,
and improve treatment services for victims of violence, abuse,
and maltreatment.
Examined tactics used by union leaders to deny
rank-and-file employees a secret ballot vote, and examined
legislation to guarantee that the right to a secret-ballot
election is preserved.
Enacted legislation authorizing increased funding
for the protection of runaway, homeless, missing and sexually
exploited children.
Urged the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to
review out-of-date doctrines that threaten to limit rank-and-
file workers' right to free and fair elections in the
workplace.
Enacted legislation to help states provide
assistive technology such as wheelchairs, communication
devices, computer hardware, and other technologies to
individuals with disabilities.
Began a comprehensive review of our nation's labor
laws, to determine where the law was working as Congress
intended, and where change to adjust to a 21st century
workplace may be necessary.
Examined the cost of college textbooks, and the
impact those costs have on the price of higher education in
America.
Preserved current-law mental health parity
benefits offered through the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act for an additional year.
SUMMARY
A total of 658 bills and resolutions were referred to the
Committee in the 108th Congress. A total of 36 public laws
resulted on issues within the Committee's jurisdiction. The
Full Committee and its five subcommittees conducted 74 days of
hearings on legislation under consideration and on oversight
and administration of laws within the jurisdiction of the
Committee. Nine of these hearings were field hearings. The Full
Committee held 21 days of hearings. Finally, the Full Committee
and its subcommittees held a total of 34 days of markup
sessions in the consideration of legislation with 20 of these
being Full Committee markup sessions. The Committee and
subcommittees ordered reported 24 bills and resolutions. The
Committee issued 2 subpoenas.
Union Calendar No. 498
108TH Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 108-813
======================================================================
REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE
WORKFORCE
_______
January 3, 2005.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Boehner, from the Committee on Education and the Workforce,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
FULL COMMITTEE
I. Summary of Activities
A. FULL COMMITTEE ACCOMPLISHMENTS (PART 1): DEFINING THE KNOWLEDGE
ECONOMY
On March 11, 2004, Chairman John Boehner (R-OH) and the
members of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce
conducted a unique hearing that gave added definition to the
mission and agenda the Committee pursued in the 108th Congress,
and is slated to continue pursuing in the 109th Congress. The
Full Committee hearing, entitled ``The Changing Nature of the
Economy: The Critical Roles of Education and Innovation in
Creating Jobs and Opportunity in a Knowledge Economy,''
featured testimony from Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan
Greenspan and other top witnesses.
Boehner's objective in conducting the March 11 ``big
picture'' hearing was to call attention to the changing
American economy and the increasingly intersecting goals of
education reform and job creation.
``Knowledge, education, and innovation play a far greater
role in today's dynamic and changing economy than in previous
generations, and I believe they are key factors in America's
ability to generate sustained job growth and create promising
new job opportunities that provide higher wages and raise
standards of living for workers,'' Boehner said in his opening
remarks to members at the March 11 hearing. ``The individual
skills, imagination, and commitment of workers are increasingly
critical not just to their individual employers, but to our
entire economy.''
``All of this underscores one vital growth engine--
education,'' Boehner continued. ``With an increasingly mobile
workforce, it is absolutely critical for workers to have the
education and skills necessary to adapt to new opportunities
and move into higher-wage jobs. And only with educational
excellence at all levels, from K-12 up to retirement, will we
able to continue generating the ideas that create high-wage,
high-opportunity products and industries in the future.''
Boehner noted that in 1999, a year widely regarded as
having been a good one for the American economy, almost 33
million U.S. jobs were lost--while in 2002, widely regarded as
a tough year for the nation's economy, 32 million jobs were
lost.
``What made 1999 a good year for workers and 2002 a
challenging year wasn't the number of jobs lost--it was the
number of other jobs that were created,'' Boehner noted. ``In
1999 our economy created approximately 35.6 million new jobs,
about 2.7 million more than were lost and 5 million jobs more
than were created in 2002. The difference between the good year
of 1999 and the challenging year of 2002 wasn't the number of
jobs lost--it was the number and quality of the new jobs the
economy created.''
``The lesson from that is clear,'' Boehner said. ``We have
a dynamic economy. Job loss is not a new phenomenon. And we
cannot rest until every American has a good job. Any time a
worker loses his or her job, there is real pain and loss.''
``Given what we know and will learn about what drives job
growth and opportunity in today's economy, what can we do to
put our economy on the strongest possible footing?'' Boehner
asked.
Responding to Boehner's question, Greenspan said
strengthening the nation's education and worker training
systems and supporting innovation are essential to creating
jobs and sustained economic growth for American families.
``[W]e need to increase our efforts to ensure that as many
of our citizens as possible have the opportunity to capture the
benefits'' of the changing economy, Greenspan told members.
``[O]ne critical element in creating that opportunity is the
provision of rigorous education and ongoing training to all
members of our society.''
``[E]qual opportunity requires equal access to knowledge,''
Greenspan said, warning at one point about studies that show
that the U.S. appears to be lagging seriously behind other
nations in terms of the quality of education being provided to
students at the K-12 level.
``The hypothesis that we should be able to improve upon the
knowledge that our students acquire as they move from
kindergarten to twelfth grade gains some support from
international comparisons,'' Greenspan said. ``A study
conducted in 1995 [The Third International Math and Science
Study, a project of the International Study Center, Lynch
School of Education, Boston College] revealed that, although
our fourth-grade students were above average in both math and
science, by the time they reached their last year of high
school they had fallen well below the international average.
Accordingly, we apparently have quite a distance to go before
we catch up.''
Greenspan appeared to reject suggestions by some Committee
members that the quality of America's education system is
directly linked to how much government spends on schools,
warning against ``over-committing'' to certain levels of
expenditure.
``Putting money in is not necessarily an accurate measure
of the output. We are falling behind by any measure in our
secondary schools,'' Greenspan said, warning it's not enough to
simply raise standards and meet them once. ``We have to
increase the skills every year or we will fall behind.''
Greenspan also emphasized the role of higher education and
worker retraining in his testimony.
``I think anything we can do that either moves the skill
levels from 4th grade to high school at a more effective pace--
or find other ways to augment our learning abilities, whether
through community colleges [or other institutions]--is crucial
to our long term development and the stability of our
society,'' Greenspan said.
Asked by Rep. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon (R-CA) whether
greater transparency in college costs could empower parents and
students to better exercise their power as consumers in the
higher education marketplace, Greenspan appeared intrigued.
``I'm inclined to find your argument somewhat persuasive,''
Greenspan told McKeon.
Boehner welcomed Greenspan's testimony, saying his comments
underscored the importance of the bipartisan No Child Left
Behind education reforms crafted by President Bush and the
Committee in 2001, as well as legislation passed by the House
in 2003 to reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act and adult
education programs, the upcoming reauthorization of the federal
Higher Education Act, and other Committee priorities.
The ``knowledge economy'' hearing provided members with
valuable testimony about the importance of the reforms being
undertaken by the Education and the Workforce Committee on
matters ranging from early childhood education to the pension
benefits of workers and retirees. It provided further
confirmation that the Committee's ongoing focus--promoting
security and prosperity for American families in a changing
economy--is the correct one for the nation's future.
B. FULL COMMITTEE ACCOMPLISHMENTS (PART 2): EDUCATION POLICY
Members of the House Education and the Workforce Committee
in the 108th Congress built on the landmark education reforms
of President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act--enacted in 2002
with bipartisan support under the leadership of Education and
the Workforce Committee Chairman John Boehner (R-OH)--by
continuing the focus on ensuring all children receive a quality
education, all parents have strong choices and options in
selecting schools for their children, and all teachers are
highly qualified. President Bush and members of the Education
and the Workforce Committee worked successfully on multiple
education reform initiatives: strengthening special education,
enhancing school lunch and child nutrition programs, building
on efforts to expand parental choice in education, and
expanding college access for low- and middle-income students
and families.
HIGHLIGHTS: Education Accomplishments, January 2003-December 2004
A summary of some of the major actions taken by President
Bush and members of the House Education and the Workforce
Committee during the 108th Congress to support constant
improvement in education:
Improving Academic Results for Students With Disabilities
Led by members of the House Committee on Education and the
Workforce, the 108th Congress successfully enacted bipartisan
legislation to renew and reform federal special education laws,
improve education results for children with disabilities, and
reduce the paperwork burden on special education teachers.
Reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) was a top priority for the Education and
the Workforce Committee in the 108th Congress. Led by Education
Reform Subcommittee Chairman Mike Castle (R-DE), Committee
leaders on March 19, 2003 introduced the Improving Education
Results for Children with Disabilities Act (H.R. 1350),
legislation hailed by one prominent school organization as
``the best special education policy revisions we've seen in
decades.'' A bipartisan majority in the U.S. House approved the
bill on April 30, 2003, setting the stage for a conference
between the House and Senate that occurred in the closing days
of the 108th Congress. President Bush signed the measure into
law in December 2004, completing the second major overhaul of
federal education policy to occur during his first term in
office.
The successful special education overhaul of 2004 had its
origins in actions taken more than two years earlier by the
Committee and the Bush administration. To lay the groundwork
for IDEA reauthorization, the Committee had begun collecting
input from parents, teachers, school administrators, students,
and the general public during 2002, using not only the
traditional hearing process, but also innovative means such as
the Internet. In July of 2002, the President's Commission on
Excellence in Special Education had released a final report
outlining principles for special education reform. That report,
with its strong emphasis on paperwork reduction, early
intervention, parental choice, and academic results for
students, laid the groundwork on which the final special
education reauthorization bill approved in 2004 was based. The
report emphasized the need to move the IDEA away from
compliance with cumbersome and bureaucratic rules and restore
the focus to educational results for students.
The conference report to H.R. 1350 (the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act), signed into law by
President Bush on December 3, 2004, improves educational
results for students with disabilities by:
Making special education stronger for students and
parents;
Reducing unnecessary lawsuits and litigation;
Supporting teachers and schools; and
Reforming special education funding and building
on historic funding increases.
A more detailed account of the Education and the Workforce
Committee's successful effort to reauthorize and strengthen
federal special education law during the 108th Congress is
included later in this report, in the summary of actions by the
Education Reform Subcommittee.
Combating Childhood Obesity & Enhancing Integrity in School
Lunch & Nutrition Programs
On June 30, 2004, President Bush signed the Child Nutrition
and WIC Reauthorization Act (H.R. 3873) into law. The new law,
authored in the House by Education Reform Subcommittee Chairman
Mike Castle (R-DE), strengthens and renews federal child
nutrition and school lunch programs and helps local communities
work with parents to fight America's growing child obesity
problem. It also improves the financial integrity of the school
lunch and WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) programs and
ensures the resources being invested in these programs reach
the children and families they are intended to serve. The Child
Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act's passage was widely
praised by school groups and nutrition and hunger advocates,
and received broad bipartisan support in both the House and the
Senate. In an interview with Education Daily, Barry Sackin with
the American School Food Service Association (ASFSA) said,
``This is the most far-reaching child nutrition bill in a
generation.''
Enactment of the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization
Act was the culmination of a year-long effort led by
Subcommittee Chairman Castle to enact strong reforms to enhance
the nation's child nutrition and school lunch programs, combat
hunger and food insecurity, and directly address the growing
child obesity epidemic. To provide enough time to negotiate
comprehensive and effective reforms, Education and the
Workforce Committee Chairman John Boehner (R-OH) and
Subcommittee Chairman Castle extended the nutrition programs
several times to ensure no disruption in these vital services
as Congress worked to complete a final reform bill that would
help states and schools fight childhood obesity; improve the
integrity of the school lunch program; improve access to
nutrition for vulnerable children; and improve the integrity of
the WIC supplemental program.
A more detailed summary of the Child Nutrition and WIC
Reauthorization Act and related legislative efforts is included
later in this report, in the summary of actions by the
Subcommittee on Education Reform.
Improving Access to Assistive Technology for Individuals
With Disabilities
On October 25, 2004, President Bush signed into law the
Assistive Technology Act of 2004 (H.R. 4278). The bill,
authored by 21st Century Competitiveness Subcommittee Chairman
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon (R-CA), expands access to technology
for individuals with disabilities.
Millions of Americans depend on assistive technologies to
help face the challenges of living with a disability.
Wheelchairs, communication devices, and computer hardware are
some examples of assistive technology devices that can
significantly improve and help maintain a high quality of life
for individuals with disabilities, allowing them to gain
employment, go to school, and live independently.
McKeon's measure, passed by Congress with overwhelming
bipartisan support, strengthens assistive technology programs
by refocusing resources to provide more direct aid to
individuals with disabilities. By directing states to spend the
majority of their federal assistive technology grants on
activities that directly benefit individuals with disabilities,
the law helps ensure individuals will have greater access to
assistive technology resources. The law encourages states to
invest in programs that have proven most effective in providing
assistive technology to individuals with disabilities.
A more detailed summary of the Assistive Technology Act and
related legislative efforts by the Education and the Workforce
Committee during the 108th Congress is included later in this
report, in the summary of actions by the Subcommittee on 21st
Century Competitiveness.
Expanding School Choice for Low-Income Families
The bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act, passed by the
Education and the Workforce Committee in 2001 and signed into
law by President Bush in 2002, included a series of important
reforms guaranteeing greater control and choices for low-income
parents with children in underachieving public schools. In the
108th Congress, members of the Education and the Workforce
Committee worked with colleagues on and off Capitol Hill to
build on the positive steps taken in No Child Left Behind
toward equal educational access for all children.
Most notably, Committee members played a key role in
establishing the first-ever federally-funded private school
choice program, signed into law by President Bush in January
2004, to provide new choices and educational freedom for low-
income parents in the District of Columbia public schools. The
groundbreaking D.C. school choice initiative was established
with bipartisan support from a coalition that included
President George Bush, Democratic D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams,
and local parents, children, and educators.
The roots of the D.C. school choice program were sown in
the No Child Left Behind drafting process that took place in
2001, during the 107th Congress. Under the No Child Left Behind
law, parents can choose to transfer their children to better
performing public schools or charter schools if their current
school is identified as underachieving for two consecutive
years. Such parents are also given the right to obtain free
private tutoring for their children if their children's schools
continue to fall short of expectations. President Bush's
original No Child Left Behind plan, however, called for such
parents to be given the option of transferring their children
to any better performing school--public or private. The private
school choice provision was voted out of No Child Left Behind
in 2001 over the objections of Education and the Workforce
Committee Chairman John Boehner (R-OH) and other school choice
supporters as the President's No Child Left Behind plan moved
through the legislative process. Boehner and other pro-school
choice Committee members vowed to continue the drive for
greater parental choice, despite the disappointing vote.
In his FY 2004 budget request, President Bush called on
Congress to create a new, voluntary school choice program for
disadvantaged students and families. Congress had passed such a
program in 1998, for students in the District of Columbia
public school system, with bipartisan support, but the measure
had been vetoed by President Bill Clinton. President Bush's
budget proposal revived the push for a D.C. school choice
initiative and became the catalyst for what would later become
the D.C. School Choice Incentive Program.
On June 23, 2003, one year after the historic Zelman v.
Simmons-Harris decision by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the
constitutionality of publicly-funded private school choice,
Chairman Boehner joined House Government Reform Committee
Chairman Tom Davis (R-VA) to introduce the D.C. Parental Choice
Incentive Act, H.R. 2556.
The next day, on June 24, Boehner testified before the
Government Reform Committee on the need to move forward with
the legislation to open the doors of educational opportunity
for students and families in the nation's capital. Boehner
joined U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige and D.C. Mayor
Anthony Williams to testify at the hearing in support of the
D.C. Parental Choice Incentive Act and its promise of greater
educational freedom for disadvantaged students and families.
That bill later took the form of an amendment to the FY
2004 District of Columbia appropriations measure offered by
Reps. Boehner, Davis, and Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ), chairman
of the D.C. Appropriations Subcommittee. That spending measure,
including the D.C. School Choice Incentive Program, was
approved in its final form by the full U.S. House on December
8, 2003; it was later approved by the U.S. Senate on January
22, 2004 and signed into law by President Bush on January 23,
2004.
The D.C. School Choice Incentive Program got off to a
strong start in its first year, the 2004-2005 academic year,
despite an abbreviated timeframe to get the program off the
ground. The Washington Scholarship Fund (WSF) was selected in
March of 2004 to run the program, and by mid-May, more than
2,000 students had applied for scholarships. In September of
2004, WSF announced that more than 1,000 students had been
placed in 53 private elementary and secondary schools in
Washington, D.C. For FY 2005, Congress again authorized the
program, with more students expected to enroll in the 2005-2006
school year.
The D.C. School Choice Incentive Program is targeted to
those students and families most in need of assistance.
Scholarships are available to children from households whose
income is at or below 185 percent of the poverty line. Priority
is given to students in schools identified as needing
improvement under the No Child Left Behind Act.
Under the D.C. school choice program, low-income students
and families have access to up to $7,500 annually to attend
safer, stronger schools. If selected for the program, a student
receives up to $7,500 to cover his or her tuition, fees, and
any transportation expenses to attend a private elementary or
high school in the District of Columbia.
The scholarship value of up to $7,500 gives students and
their families numerous educational options. According to a
survey from the Cato Institute released in 2004, the ``median
per student cost for private elementary schools in the District
of Columbia is $4,500 * * * [and] only 39 percent of D.C.
private schools have tuitions of $10,000 or more.''
In addition, the National Center for Policy Analysis
determined during the 108th Congress that ``the tuition at 88
private schools is less than $4,000, and at 60 of those it is
less than $3,200,'' illustrating the potential purchasing power
of the opportunity scholarships. WSF found in 2004-2005 that
even in cases where the $7,500 scholarship was not enough to
cover the tuition, in most cases the private schools made up
the difference and the students were able to attend the private
school of their choice.
The D.C. School Choice Incentive Program is funded entirely
from new money, meaning no resources are drained from the D.C.
public school system, supporters noted. In fact, additional
money is being provided to D.C. public and charter schools as a
result of the program, they pointed out. Of the $40 million in
funding directed to the D.C. School Choice Incentive Program:
$13 million is provided for the D.C. school choice
scholarship program, along with an additional $1 million for
administrative expenses.
$13 million is provided directly to the D.C.
public schools for teacher training, teacher recruitment, and
improving student achievement through supplemental educational
services and public school choice. (This is in addition to
large increases the D.C. public schools have already been
guaranteed under appropriations for the No Child Left Behind
Act, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and other
federal programs.)
$13 million is provided for charter schools in the
District of Columbia to support existing charter schools and
create five new charter schools.
Other highlights of the bipartisan legislation:
The law makes clear that participating schools
cannot discriminate against students. Participating schools are
prohibited from taking students' religion into account in
admissions decisions. A participating school may not
discriminate against participating students or student
applicants on the basis of race, color, national origin,
religion, or sex. Schools must accept participating students on
a first-come, first-served basis. Religious schools can
continue to take religion into account in hiring decisions, as
in many other programs that allow faith-based organizations to
use federal funds to help individuals.
Accountability is required to ensure results for
students. The U.S. Secretary of Education and the Mayor of the
District of Columbia jointly select an independent entity to
evaluate the program and monitor its effectiveness. As with the
Cleveland (OH) Scholarship Program, the independent evaluator
is required to test participating and non-participating
students annually to ensure accountability.
Chairman Boehner in the 108th Congress also worked with
Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) on the Children's Hope Act (H.R.
2347), a bill that proposed expanding parental choice in
education through a scholarship tax credit. Although the
legislation was not ultimately enacted in the 108th Congress,
Boehner was an original cosponsor.
Under the Children's Hope Act, if a state enacted a
scholarship tax credit of $250 of more, the residents of that
state would have been eligible to take part in a federal
scholarship taxcredit. The federal tax credit of $100 ($200 for
joint returns) would have been designated for contributions made to
organizations that ensure at least half of all scholarships are awarded
to low-income children. For the nine states that do not have an income
tax, residents could have taken a dollar for dollar credit against
their property taxes.
Strengthening Teacher Training & Teacher Colleges
Members of the Education and the Workforce Committee
conducted a series of efforts during the 108th Congress to
build on the No Child Left Behind education reforms by taking
steps to help states and school districts meet the law's call
for placing a highly-qualified teacher in every public
classroom by the middle of the decade.
In June 2002, the Secretary of Education issued the first
full annual report on teacher preparation as required under
Title II of the Higher Education Act (HEA). The report--Meeting
the Highly Qualified Teachers Challenge: The Secretary's Annual
Report on Teacher Quality--concluded that the teacher
preparation system in the United States has serious
limitations. Not only does acceptable achievement on
certification assessments differ markedly among the states, the
Secretary's report found, but most states, in setting the
minimum score considered to be a passing score, set those
scores well below national averages. The data collected for
this report suggested schools of education and formal teacher
training programs are failing to produce the types of highly
qualified teachers the No Child Left Behind Act demands,
Committee members noted.
The No Child Left Behind Act calls for a highly qualified
teacher in every classroom by the 2005-2006 school year,
lending new urgency to the stated bipartisan goal of ensuring
teacher training programs are effectively training highly
qualified teachers that will meet the needs of America's school
children.
To address this lack of accountability in the nation's
teacher colleges, Education and the Workforce Committee
members, led by Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA), introduced the Ready
to Teach Act (H.R. 2211). The bill, introduced on May 22, 2003,
proposed aligning teacher training programs with the high
standards for accountability and results found in the No Child
Left Behind Act.
The Ready to Teach Act called for aligning teacher training
programs under the federal Higher Education Act (HEA) with the
definitions and provisions for highly qualified teachers in the
No Child Left Behind Act, coordinating activities under the two
Acts and bringing the accountability found in NCLB into teacher
training programs. Supporters argued the reforms included in
the legislation would infuse new quality and accountability
measures into the grants administered for teacher training
programs, and provide innovative approaches such as charter
colleges of education that would improve the teaching workforce
so critical to the success of K-12 education reform.
The Ready to Teach Act was approved with overwhelming
bipartisan support in the House on July 9, 2003. While the bill
was not acted upon by the Senate, similar legislation is
expected to be introduced by Education and the Workforce
Committee members early in the 109th Congress.
A more detailed summary of the Ready to Teach Act and
related legislative efforts is included later in this report,
in the summary of actions by the Subcommittee on 21st Century
Competitiveness.
Revamping International Education & Renewing Graduate
Education Programs
Led by members of the Education and the Workforce
Committee, the House of Representatives passed two separate
bills during the 108th Congress to revamp international higher
education programs to meet the realities of the post-9/11 era
and enhance graduate education in the United States. The bills
were passed by the House as a result of the Committee's
comprehensive effort to reauthorize the Higher Education Act
(HEA).
On October 21, 2003, the House gave bipartisan approval to
H.R. 3077, the International Studies in Higher Education Act.
The bill, authored by Select Education Subcommittee Chairman
Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), sought to build on the international and
foreign language studies programs authorized in Title VI of the
Higher Education Act. H.R. 3077 attempted to update federally-
funded international and foreign language studies programs at
colleges and universities across America, which took on
increased relevance and importance after the September 11, 2001
terrorist attacks on the United States.
H.R. 3077 called for the reauthorization of programs that
provide for the study of international issues and foreign
languages at colleges and universities across America.
Hoekstra's legislation sought to make numerous improvements to
enhance international learning opportunities for students,
including support for linking these programs with overseas
institutions of higher education that promote research and
training abroad for Americans.
The House also gave bipartisan approval on October 21, 2003
to the Graduate Opportunities in Higher Education Act (H.R.
3076). That bill, also authored by Subcommittee Chairman
Hoekstra, proposed reauthorizing graduate assistance programs
under Title VII of the Higher Education Act. The bill sought to
increase flexibility and place a priority on the study of
subject areas with demonstrated teacher shortages at the K-12
education level, including math, science, special education,
and the education of students with limited English proficiency.
By targeting federally-funded graduate fellowships to these
subject areas facing teacher shortages in America's elementary
and secondary schools, supporters said, the Graduate
Opportunities in Higher Education Act would help to fortify the
pipeline of highly qualified teachers. The bill received
widespread support from educators at all levels of education,
with experts noting that an important key to placing highly
qualified teachers in every public school classroom is having
adequate faculty available to train the teachers of tomorrow.
More detailed summaries of the International Studies in
Higher Education Act and the Graduate Opportunities in Higher
Education Act and related legislative efforts are included
later in this report, in the summary of actions by the
Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness.
Improving Academic & Financial Accountability in Early
Childhood Programs
In 2002, following completion of the No Child Left Behind
Act, President Bush called on Congress to pass legislation to
strengthen results in early childhood education, including the
federal Head Start early childhood program. Members of the
Education and the Workforce Committee embraced the President's
call for early childhood education reform, which became one of
the Committee's leading priorities for the 108th Congress.
However, the attempted Head Start reauthorization in 2003
became the focal point of an intense debate between lawmakers
concerned about protecting the rights of children, parents,
teachers, and taxpayers, and entrenched lobbying groups devoted
to preserving the status quo at any expense. Lobbyists
characterized their positions as an effort to ``save Head
Start,'' but by the conclusion of the 108th Congress, many
legislators had concluded the real threat to the program's
future success was the lobbying community itself.
Numerous reports of financial and administrative
mismanagement by Head Start grantees were documented in the
American press during 2003 and 2004. While some characterized
the abuses individually as ``isolated incidents,'' serious
potential abuses were documented by the media in more than a
dozen cities nationwide in 2003. In one of the worst incidents,
a Head Start executive in Kansas City, Missouri--who testified
before the Subcommittee on Education Reform in opposition to
efforts by President Bush to increase accountability in the
Head Start program--was later revealed by the Kansas City Star
to have been earning a salary in excess of $300,000 annually
and driving a luxury sport-utility vehicle leased, in part,
with federal Head Start funds meant for disadvantaged children.
Committee Republicans expressed profound disappointment
during the 108th Congress concerning the reluctance of lobbying
organizations such as the National Head Start Association
(NHSA) and the Children's Defense Fund to condemn the abuses
brought to light in Kansas City and other cities. In one
prominent case, a top NHSA official even was reported to be at
the heart of one of the situations under scrutiny by the media
and independent federal auditors. Republicans noted annual
funding for Head Start had nearly doubled since Republicans
took control of the House in the mid-1990s, and expressed
concern over growing evidence that a troubling share of these
resources never reach the teachers and disadvantaged children
they are intended to help. Parents, children, teachers, and
taxpayers deserve to know the billions of dollars being
invested every year in the Head Start program are being used to
help prepare disadvantaged children for kindergarten,
Republicans argued.
President Bush called on Congress in 2002 and 2003 to build
on the bipartisan reforms of the No Child Left Behind Act by
passing legislation to improve student results in early
childhood education. The Bush administration noted that many of
the nation's governors, Democratic and Republican alike, had
for years been seeking greater ability to coordinate between
the federally-administered Head Start program and successful
state-run early childhood initiatives that mirror Head Start.
As both the liberal Brookings Institution and the conservative
Heritage Foundation noted in 2003, greater coordination between
Head Start and state programs could strengthen early childhood
learning across the nation.
Committee Republicans expressed support for the
administration's goal of strengthening Head Start's academic
components, describing Head Start as ``a great program that is
capable of achieving even greater results.'' Republicans noted
studies showing that while children in Head Start show
improvement in key subjects, they still leave the program with
knowledge levels far below national averages for U.S. children.
According to official federal data, Republicans noted, Head
Start children lag behind their more affluent peers in crucial
early learning knowledge areas. As a result of this ``readiness
gap,'' Head Start children are not being adequately prepared
for school in key areas of cognitive development shown to be
critical for later school success. Republicans also signaled
their desire to use the Head Start reauthorization to address
concerns about financial accountability in the Head Start
program.
On May 22, 2003, Education Reform Subcommittee Chairman
Mike Castle (R-DE) introduced the School Readiness Act (H.R.
2210), a five-year Head Start reauthorization bill seeking to
strengthen the academic components of Head Start while
preserving the comprehensive services such as health and
nutrition that the program already provides to needy children.
The bill included provisions that would have improved
accountability in Head Start and helped to prevent some of the
reported abuse of Head Start funds at the local level. The
legislation also would have placed a greater emphasis than ever
on the importance of Head Start teachers, who Republicans
warned are currently being hurt by a system that allows
millions of dollars to be used for questionable expenditures
such as leasing luxury SUVs instead of improving teacher
salaries and classroom conditions. By increasing
accountability, revamping some aspects of the current
monitoring program, and allowing a small number of highly-
qualified states a role in program administration and
oversight, proponents argued, the School Readiness Act sought
to help ensure Head Start funds would be used for their proper
purpose--making sure disadvantaged children enter kindergarten
ready to learn. The School Readiness Act proposed to keep Head
Start at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS), increasing the program's funding authorization by $202
million and reauthorizing the program through Fiscal Year 2008.
Among the safeguards proposed in the School Readiness Act
that would have helped to prevent financial abuses that hurt
children, parents, teachers, and taxpayers:
Improving oversight. Many of the problems of
financial misuse facing Head Start centers have developed as a
result of the disconnect between local grantees and the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the
program. H.R. 2210 proposed allowing a small number of highly-
qualified states to coordinate existing state pre-kindergarten
programs with Head Start, ensuring additional accountability by
allowing state involvement in fiscal decisions and oversight of
local Head Start budgets. With a smaller pool of grantees to
monitor than HHS, states could discover and correct financial
abuse as it happens, rather than waiting until millions of
dollars are misspent, backers argued.
Tighter controls on taxpayer-funded travel. The
School Readiness Act proposed permitting federal Head Start
funds to be used by local grantees for meeting and/or
conference travel only if similar training or technical
assistance is not available locally.
Unannounced monitoring visits. In order to get an
accurate picture of the situation at each Head Start center,
HHS would have been authorized to conduct unannounced
monitoring visits under the School Readiness Act.
Contracting out monitoring duties. By allowing HHS
to hire outside contractors to monitor local Head Start
agencies and grantees, H.R. 2210 proposed to reduce potential
conflicts of interest. Outside monitors would also have helped
to ameliorate HHS's manpower shortage, and allowed closer
monitoring of more grantees. Contracting out these important
positions would enable federal authorities to catch and correct
any financial misuse earlier, supporters of the bill argued.
Ensuring local Head Start centers are fairly
evaluated on their performance. The School Readiness Act
proposed to do away with outdated and arbitrary ``educational
performance measures'' in current law that do not adequately
gauge children's progress. These flawed measures would be
replaced by more straightforward, scientifically-based
education standards to guide a child's progress in key areas
relating to school readiness, better enabling parents and
teachers to know how each child is progressing, backers argued.
Weeding out poor-performing programs. For the
first time, Head Start grantees would have been required to set
program goals for academic achievement and meet them before
their funding is renewed. Supporters argued this would create
greater fairness for successful grantees that deserve to be
rewarded and recognized for their efforts.
The School Readiness Act was approved by the full Education
and the Workforce Committee on June 19, 2003.
A number of developments set the stage for House passage of
the School Readiness Act during the summer of 2003. Most
notably, on July 7, 2003, President Bush gave his first speech
on Head Start reform since the introduction of the School
Readiness Act, during a tour of Highland Park Elementary School
in Landover, Maryland.
House Republicans reached agreement July 24, 2003 on a Head
Start amendment that paved the way for floor action on the
School Readiness Act. It was decided that the consensus
agreement would be offered as an amendment in the nature of a
substitute to the Committee-approved version of H.R. 2210 on
the House floor.
``We have listened to concerned Members, Head Start
providers and parents in crafting these improvements to the
bill,'' said Castle when the agreement was announced. ``This
legislation will strengthen Head Start and truly help these
young children by better preparing them for their school
years.''
As in the earlier bill, the consensus bill would have:
required no new testing; weeded out poor-performing programs;
restored civil rights protections for faith-based organizations
participating in Head Start, affirming they are not violating
federal law when they hire on a religious basis; and emphasized
academic instruction methods rooted in proven scientific-based
research, Republicans noted.
On July 25, 2003, following this consensus agreement, the
House of Representatives passed the School Readiness Act
despite the barrage of misleading attacks thrown in its path by
lobbying groups.
During the autumn of 2003, Education and the Workforce
Committee Chairman John Boehner (R-OH) and Subcommittee
Chairman Castle requested that the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services provide detailed information about how
federal Head Start dollars were being used at the local level.
The Committee leaders requested information about Head Start
salaries, travel expenses and other significant expenditures
made with federal Head Start funds that are intended to help
teachers prepare disadvantaged children for kindergarten. HHS
officials agreed to comply with the request.
The National Head Start Association in January 2004 filed a
lawsuit to block the Department from complying with the
congressional request. Committee leaders strongly criticized
the lobbying organization for its action. The judge in the case
rejected the NHSA's lawsuit just days after it was filed.
Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson
responded to the congressional request on May 13, 2004, in a
letter sent to Capitol Hill. The inquiry ``brought additional
management issues to light'' with respect to Head Start,
Thompson said in the letter. Committee leaders welcomed the
Secretary's cooperation with the request, while noting the
information HHS provided as a result of the survey seemed to
raise more questions than it answered.
The results of the HHS inquiry revealed a wide disparity in
Head Start spending practices by the nation's largest Head
Start grantees. While many local grantees appear to be working
to ensure federal Head Start funds are spent directly on
preparing disadvantaged children for kindergarten, Republicans
noted, others appear to be spending unusually large percentages
of their Head Start funds on meeting and conference travel,
and/or billing Head Start for lavish salary and compensation
packages for their top executives. HHS asked Head Start
grantees to self-check and confirm the data in the report
before it was transmitted to Congress.
On November 25, 2003, along with Senators Judd Gregg (R-NH)
and Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Boehner and Castle requested that
the independent Government Accountability Office (GAO) review
current Head Start accounting practices and make
recommendations, if needed, to improve the fiscal management
and accountability of local grantees. GAO is expected to
complete its report in early 2005, and the recommendations in
the study could have a significant impact on efforts to
reauthorize the Head Start program during the 109th Congress.
NOTE: In the 108th Congress, the General Accounting Office
changed its name to General Accountability Office and is
referred to as GAO in the body of this report.
Efforts To Expand College Access for Low and Middle-Income
Students
In the 108th Congress, the Education and the Workforce
Committee embarked on a comprehensive overhaul of the nation's
higher education system aimed at expanding college access for
low and middle-income students. The Full Committee and two of
its subcommittees began an exhaustive series of hearings and
used innovative web-based initiatives to seek public input on
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA). A brief
summary of this process follows. A more detailed account of the
Committee's efforts to expand college access for low and
middle-income students can be found later in this report, in
the summaries of actions taken by the 21st Century
Competitiveness Subcommittee and the Select Education
Subcommittee.
Higher Education Reauthorization Hearings
Committee efforts to reauthorize the Higher Education Act
began in earnest in the spring of 2003, beginning with a look
at a fundamental theme found within most of the Committee's
education reform efforts: the need for accountability. Pledging
to address growing concerns among students, parents, and
taxpayers about what some believe is a slow and subtle decline
in quality and accountability in American higher education,
members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce on May
13, 2003 launched a series of hearings to lay the groundwork
for reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.
The first hearing featured testimony from independent,
respected voices within the higher education community who
argued more must be done to ensure America's colleges and
universities are delivering results at a time when parents,
students and taxpayers are investing billions annually in
postsecondary education. Witnesses included Charles Miller,
chairman of the University of Texas Board of Regents, who as a
Texas business leader played a key role in crafting the Texas
academic achievement system during the 1990s under then-
Governor George W. Bush that later became the foundation of the
No Child Left Behind Act; and Dr. Frank Newman, director of the
Futures Project, a higher education think tank based at Brown
University and funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts. Committee
leaders invited Newman to testify in part because of his
reputation as a noted advocate of regular assessments and
increased accountability in higher education.
Dr. Newman told members that regular assessment of student
progress is quite possible in higher education, just as it is
in elementary and secondary education. He suggested Congress
consider taking steps to ensure that the consumers of higher
education--parents and students--have as much information as
possible about the quality of the institutions they are paying
for.
``[L]earning can be assessed in a meaningful and economical
way,'' Newman said in submitted testimony. ``Perhaps nothing
the federal government can do, would be as useful as focusing
on ensuring that the information necessary to allow the higher
education market to serve the public is available.''
Newman dismissed suggestions that a shortage of funding for
higher education is the main reason colleges and universities
do not regularly track student achievement, noting that state
higher education spending had actually increased over the last
20 years, ``even on an after-inflation and a per-student
basis.'' Between 1993 and the present, Newman noted, the amount
spent on higher education by state governments increased on
average by 60.2%. The real problem, Newman said, is that the
problem simply hasn't been acknowledged or addressed.
On July 22, 2003, Committee leaders took the next step by
defining the challenges facing the nation's higher education
system and articulating how best to address those challenges.
Declaring that the nation's higher education system was in
crisis as a result of uncontrolled cost increases that threaten
to put college out of reach for low and middle-income students
and families, Committee leaders announced a set of principles
that would guide efforts to complete reauthorization of the
Higher Education Act.
The principles included:
Holding colleges accountable for cost increases
without over-burdensome federal intrusion;
Removing barriers for non-traditional students;
Improving quality and innovation by empowering
consumers; and
Realigning student aid programs to ensure fairness
for America's neediest students and families.
The College Cost Crisis
To further call attention to the issue of skyrocketing
college costs and their impact on college access in America,
Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Boehner (R-
OH) and 21st Century Competitiveness Subcommittee Chairman
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon (R-CA) authored a report on the
topic. Released on September 4, 2003, the report, ``The College
Cost Crisis,'' concluded that decades of hyperinflation in
college costs, in both good economic times and bad, had caused
America's higher education system to reach a crisis point.
Among the key findings in the report:
America's higher education system is in crisis due
to exploding college costs. Tuition increases are outpacing the
rate of inflation, increases in family income, and even
increases in state and federal financial aid, which have grown
tremendously in recent years. These cost increases are pricing
students and families out of the college market, and forcing
prospective students to ``trade down'' in their postsecondary
educational choices because options that may have been
affordable years ago have now been priced out of reach.
It's not just the economy, stupid. Though many
recent accounts attribute the college cost crisis primarily to
state budget cuts and difficult economic times, the facts show
tuition increases have persisted regardless of circumstances
such as the economy or state funding, and have far outpaced
inflation year after year, regardless of whether the economy
has been stumbling or thriving.
In both good and bad economic times, institutions
of higher education have continued to disproportionately
increase prices for students and families. When times are
tough, institutions increase tuition; and when times are good,
institutions increase tuition as well.
Students and parents are losing patience with
higher education ``sticker shock.'' A backlash is possible, as
evidenced by student protests taking place on a number of major
U.S. campuses. Public opinion shows widespread concern about
the cost of a college education, as well as overall interest in
finding solutions and involving the federal government in
higher education affordability.
Americans believe traditional institutions of
higher learning are not accountable enough to parents,
students, and taxpayers--the consumers of higher education.
Americans do not believe a dramatic increase in
federal funding for higher education will solve the college
cost crisis.
Americans believe wasteful spending by college and
university management is the number-one reason for skyrocketing
college costs.
The amount of information available to consumers
about tuition increases is inadequate, inhibiting the ability
of consumers to ``comparison shop'' and hold institutions
accountable for tuition hikes.
While significant tuition increases are the norm,
they are not unavoidable. This report found a number of
instances where colleges have managed, through innovation and
diligence, to hold tuition increases to a manageable level or
in some cases even reduce tuition. This not only provides hope,
but concrete examples that college costs do not necessarily
have to increase at such a rapid pace, and it is possible to
keep the dream of a college education within reach.
While ``The College Cost Crisis'' did not propose specific
solutions, it made clear that addressing the cost problem would
require hard work, innovation, and open-minded cooperation
among the stakeholders in higher education.
``The college cost crisis is not likely something that can
be `solved' by simple changes,'' the report noted. ``Rather,
solutions will come from increased awareness and understanding,
commitment from the higher education community to not only
acknowledge the problem but work toward addressing it, and
broad cooperative efforts from all stakeholders in higher
education to make a concerted effort to improve the
affordability of higher education in America.''
``No longer can college cost increases be blindly accepted
part and parcel, with little concern for the impact on American
families,'' the report warned. ``No longer can the immense
federal contribution to higher education be consumed by costs
that are swallowing student and family budgets. No longer can
lawmakers stand idly by while millions of students are forced
to trade down their higher education aspirations, and in some
cases give up on postsecondary education entirely simply
because it costs too much. Solutions will not be easy, but as a
nation, we cannot afford not to address the issue of
affordability in higher education. The college cost crisis is
real, and it must be addressed for the good of our higher
education system and for the good of our nation.''
To provide a resource for higher education consumers fed up
with the high cost of college and seeking to have an impact on
the HEA reauthorization process, Committee leaders unveiled a
College Cost Central website in September 2003. The website
featured a survey for students, parents, and interested parties
to provide input on issues of college cost, and how the federal
government could address the escalating crisis. The website
also included links to further information on the issues
surrounding college costs, as well as examples of the college
cost crisis in the news.
At the close of the 108th Congress, nearly 1,000 people had
submitted responses to the college cost central survey. Among
the most influential findings of the survey: an overwhelming
majority of respondents said first priority in federal higher
education aid increases should be given to low and middle-
income students striving for college, rather than to college
graduates who have already received an education. This concept
became a central theme in the comprehensive HEA reauthorization
legislation introduced by Boehner, McKeon, and other Committee
leaders later in the 108th Congress.
Prioritizing College Access for Current and Future Students
In fall 2003, the independent Government Accountability
Office (GAO) issued a report warning that the federal
consolidation loan program--a program that provides taxpayer
subsidies to higher income borrowers who have already
graduated--is poised to balloon in cost by billions of dollars
during the remainder of the decade. GAO warned that the
escalating cost of the consolidation loan program, if left
unchecked, will consume an increasing share of higher education
subsidies, and could threaten Congress' ability in the future
to take steps to expand college access for current and future
students. GAO urged Congress to consider alternatives,
including moving the consolidation loan program to the same
variable interest rate structure in place for other federal
student loans.
On March 17, 2004, the Education and the Workforce
Committee held a hearing to examine the GAO recommendations.
Witnesses before the Committee testified on the cost of federal
consolidation loans, with some warning increased federal
entitlement subsidies to college graduates--an idea proposed by
some of the leaders of the Democratic Party--would divert
federal funding away from other education programs and reduce
Congress' ability to expand access to higher education for low
and middle-income students.
``Our first priority is expanding access to higher
education for low and middle income students,'' said Chairman
Boehner in his opening statement at the hearing. ``The federal
consolidation loan program is different than other student aid
programs, because it doesn't provide subsidies to people who
are currently students. Rather, it provides billions in
subsidies to people who are former students--graduates who have
realized their dream of a college education and entered the
workforce. Should we expand those subsidies at the expense of
low and middle-income students who may not be able to attend
college? I don't think so.''
During the March 17 hearing, respected economist and
education consultant Robert Shapiro--a former Clinton
administration official who had since joined the Brookings
Institution--urged Congress to consider switching to variable
rate consolidation loans as a means of ensuring that money
would continue to be available for future efforts to expand
college access for incoming students. Shapiro told Committee
members he expects the cost of the consolidation loan program
to grow by $21 billion over the next seven years--billions that
could instead be used for programs that benefit low and middle-
income students aspiring for college.
GAO's recommendations had a profound impact on the HEA
reauthorization process. The question of whether federal higher
education resources should be directed to current and future
students or to college graduates through an expansion of the
consolidation loan program remained a central focus of the
Committee for the remainder of the 108th Congress. While the
Committee's Democratic leadership opposed GAO's recommendations
to switch to variable rates, more than half of the Committee's
Democratic members either introduced or co-sponsored
legislation during the 108th Congress that would have gone to
variable rates on all new consolidation loans.
In 2003, members of the Education and the Workforce
Committee introduced--and the House approved--four separate
bills to reauthorize various portions of the Higher Education
Act. Those bills, discussed at length in other sections of this
report, proposed to expand student loan forgiveness for
teachers of key subjects in high-poverty K-12 schools;
strengthen teacher training programs through increased
accountability; revamp international higher education programs
to meet the realities of the post-9/11 era; and enhance
graduate education to better meet the needs of America's
educational system at all levels.
The College Access & Opportunity Act
On May 5, 2004, Chairmen Boehner and McKeon introduced the
final piece of comprehensive Higher Education Act
reauthorization legislation, the College Access and Opportunity
Act (H.R. 4283). The bill sought to expand access to higher
education for millions of low and middle-income students, and
proposed reauthorizing the remaining portions of the HEA,
including Title IV, which governs student aid.
The College Access and Opportunity Act called for expanding
access to higher education for low and middle-income students
by:
Strengthening Pell Grants, student aid, student
access, and minority serving institutions.
Reducing loan costs, fees, and red tape for
students and graduates.
Removing barriers for non-traditional students.
Empowering consumers through ``sunshine'' and
transparency in college costs and accreditation.
Upon introduction of the bill, Boehner and McKeon noted
surveys showing an overwhelming majority of Americans believe
future increases in federal higher education aid should go to
expanding help for current and future college students, rather
than to continued subsidies to graduates in the workforce, such
as borrowers repaying their loans.
The College Access and Opportunity Act also would have
addressed growing concerns that excessive lender earnings,
fueled in part by provisions in the Higher Education Act
promoted by the Clinton administration, had been diverting
money away from the students who are priority number one in the
federal student aid programs. The bill proposed reforming these
provisions and requiring lenders to return excess income to the
federal government, freeing up resources that could be used to
expand access to current and future students.
The bill included numerous student-focused reforms such as
steps to strengthen Pell Grants and student aid programs while
reducing red tape and eliminating outdated barriers to college
access. It proposed steps to strengthen Minority Serving
Institutions and ensure all eligible colleges and universities
are able to compete on a level playing field for funds that
would allow them to better serve their students.
The College Access and Opportunity Act proposed expanding
access for current and future students by increasing loan
limits, reducing the fees students pay on their loans,
repealing anti-consumer restrictions for borrowers seeking to
consolidate their loans, and ensuring all federal student loans
are provided under the successful variable rate structure that
resulted in the lowest interest rates in the history of the
federal student loan programs during President Bush's first
term.
On May 12, 2004, the Committee held a hearing on the
College Access and Opportunity Act, with witnesses from various
areas of the higher education spectrum testifying in particular
on the important steps included in the bill to restore the
Higher Education Act to its original mission of expanding
college access for current and future students.
The Committee also held a hearing focusing on the
proprietary sector within America's higher education system,
questioning whether current law treats such institutions and
their students fairly. Chairman Boehner and Chairman McKeon
used the hearing to give members on both sides of the aisle an
opportunity to directly challenge representatives of the for-
profit sector about allegations of fraud and abuse within their
industry.
Witnesses at the hearing praised the provisions of the
College Access and Opportunity Act that would eliminate
barriers in current law that limit access and benefits to
students at proprietary institutions. Proprietary schools
enroll a larger share of minority, low-income, and non-
traditional students than other schools, and should be treated
more equitably under current law, Committee leaders and several
witnesses agreed.
Closing the Graduation Gap in American Higher Education
Another issue scrutinized by the Education and the
Workforce Committee during its HEA reauthorization process was
the emerging graduation gap, with colleges not producing the
student outcomes many Americans expect. An alarming graduation
gap exists at U.S. colleges and universities, with a
disproportionate share of minority and low-income students
unable to earn a degree even after pursuing higher education,
witnesses told the Committee during a hearing on July 13, 2004.
The witnesses praised efforts by Committee Republicans to
increase the focus on graduation rates and student outcomes by
giving students and parents access to information so they may
hold colleges and universities accountable.
A troubling report released in May 2004 by the Education
Trust revealed disturbingly low graduation rates at American
colleges and universities, particularly among minority
students. The Education Trust report found that ``[as] growing
numbers of Americans enter college, most colleges and
universities have failed to ensure that those students will
graduate.'' (Arenson, Karen; ``Study Faults Colleges on
Graduation Rates,'' The New York Times, May 26, 2004). The
report indicated graduation rates are particularly low among
minority students at the nation's traditional colleges and
universities.
Education Trust policy director Ross Wiener testified
before the Committee concerning the report and its findings.
``Higher education in America has been and continues to be
a tremendous success story,'' said Wiener. ``But that
tremendous success has allowed us to overlook a serious and
deep-rooted problem in higher education: far too many students
who enter our higher education system fail to earn a degree.''
Committee Republicans also challenged some of the higher
education establishment's claims about government higher
education spending. When Committee leaders called on higher
education organizations to explain the graduation gap and the
ongoing hyperinflation in college costs, many responded by
pointing the finger at ``state budget cuts'' in higher
education. But a 2004 report from the State Higher Education
Executive Officers (SHEEO), highlighted by Committee
Republicans, indicated state funding for higher education had
kept pace with both inflation and dramatic enrollment increases
in recent years, casting doubt on lobbyists' claims.
Upon release of the SHEEO report, Chairmen Boehner and
McKeon again challenged the education establishment led by
college lobbyists to explain why federally-funded colleges and
universities should not be held accountable for excessive
tuition increases that hurt parents and students. Warning about
``a growing disconnect between the priorities of the lobbying
community and those of parents, students, and taxpayers,''
Boehner and McKeon also called on college lobbying groups to
address the Education Trust report on the graduation gap.
Ending Excess Subsidies for Student Loan Providers & Expanding Loan
Relief for Teachers
In the fall of 2004, led by members of the Education and
the Workforce Committee, Congress passed legislation to shut
down excess subsidies to certain loan providers in the federal
student loan programs, and to redirect the savings to expand
loan relief for teachers of key subjects who teach for at least
five years in high-poverty K-12 schools.
In February 2004, as part of his FY 2005 budget request,
President Bush called on Congress to close loopholes in higher
education law that allowed certain loan providers to earn
excess profits on student loans at taxpayer expense. Chairmen
Boehner and McKeon answered the President's call in May 2004
with introduction of the College Access and Opportunity Act.
That bill would have immediately and permanently shut down the
excess subsidies, and redirected the resources to expand access
for low and middle-income students. Committee Democrats did not
include provisions to shut down the excess subsidies in their
version of the HEA reauthorization bill.
In September 2004, House Democrats for the first time
introduced legislation to end the excess subsidies. Days later,
in an effort to provide a stopgap vehicle that could shut down
the subsidies and attract bipartisan support outside of the
delayed HEA reauthorization process, Boehner and Senate Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Chairman Judd Gregg
(R-NH) introduced the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act (H.R.
5186). The bill proposed to shut down the subsidies, expand
student loan relief for teachers, and give Congress an
opportunity to permanently end the subsidies and use the funds
to expand access for current and future students through a
comprehensive reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. The
Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act passed the House and Senate
easily and was signed into law by President Bush on October 30,
2004.
Reducing Pell Grant Fraud
House Republicans, led by Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX),
introduced the Student Aid Streamlined Disclosure Act (H.R.
3613), legislation to strengthen the popular Pell Grant higher
education program by reducing fraud in the program--fraud that
cheats America's most disadvantaged students.
While protecting taxpayer privacy, H.R. 3613 would have
required the federal government to improve the verification
process for Pell Grant awards through an IRS data match. In
addition to helping to reduce the under-awarding of Pell Grant
benefits for students who actually qualify for more generous
awards, proponents noted, the proposal could free up as much as
$340 million that Congress could use to better serve the
increasing number of needy students legitimately receiving Pell
grants, increase the maximum Pell Grant award for students, or
reduce the current budget shortfall in the Pell Grant program
for future recipients.
In November 2004, congressional appropriators took a stand
in support of students hoping for a future increase in the
maximum Pell Grant award by declining to include a provision in
the FY 2005 omnibus appropriations bill that would have ordered
the U.S. Department of Education to continue using badly
outdated IRS tax tables as part of its process for determining
students' Pell Grant eligibility.
Under a law enacted in 1992 and written by congressional
Democrats, the Education Department is required to use up-to-
date data to calculate Pell eligibility. But since 1994,
Republicans noted, the Education Department has been using IRS
tax tables compiled in 1988 to determine which students
qualify. The use of the badly outdated tables has added
hundreds of millions of dollars to the Pell Grant budget
shortfall, Committee leaders noted--and the longer the federal
government continues to use them, the longer it will be before
Congress can even consider raising the maximum Pell Grant
award.
By declining to insert language in the FY 2005
appropriations bill requiring the Education Department to
continue using the outdated tax tables, Republicans noted in
December 2004, Congress had taken an important step toward
potentially limiting the continued growth of the Pell Grant
budget shortfall and given renewed hope to needy students for a
future increase in the maximum Pell award. Organizations such
as College Parents of America and the National Taxpayers Union
praised the step taken by appropriators.
The FED UP Initiative
On the first legislative day of the 108th Congress, 21st
Century Competitiveness Subcommittee Chairman McKeon
reintroduced bipartisan legislation, identical to a bill
introduced in 2002 with strong bipartisan support, that sought
to improve access to higher education for disadvantaged
students by reducing red tape in federal student aid programs.
The bipartisan measure, dubbed ``FED UP,'' proposed making
technical corrections to the Higher Education Act that would
make it easier for Hispanic-Serving Institutions to receive
federal aid, help college students avoid defaulting on their
student loans, clarify that federal scholarship aid can go to
low-income and minority students for law school, and improve
higher education access in other ways recommended by the higher
education community.
The FED UP legislation was based directly on
recommendations submitted by school officials, educators,
students, and others through the FED UP project (short for
``Upping the Effectiveness of Our Federal Student Aid
Programs''). The FED UP project used the Internet to identify
and simplify burdensome regulations in the Higher Education Act
that work against college students and personnel. Interested
parties submitted recommendations to the FED UP website on how
to streamline burdensome regulations in higher education. The
project received approximately 3,000 responses from college
officials, administrators, students, and other personnel who
operate America's institutions of higher learning, laying the
groundwork for the reforms introduced by McKeon and later
included in a comprehensive HEA reauthorization bill.
The FED UP legislation also included a provision authored
by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) that sought to forgive the
student loans of the spouses of fire, police, military and
rescue personnel who were victims of the September 11, 2001,
attack on the United States. The FED UP reforms were included
in legislation introduced by Chairmen Boehner and McKeon in
2004 to strengthen and renew the federal student aid programs
(H.R. 4283), and are expected to be included in similar
legislation in the 109th Congress.
Supporting High Quality Teachers
On October 4, 2004, with support from members of the
Education and the Workforce Committee, President George W. Bush
signed into law tax relief legislation extending a law enacted
in 2002 that allows school teachers to deduct up to $250 a year
for out-of-pocket expenses such as books and crayons. The
popular deduction was enacted originally by President Bush and
Congress in February 2002, a month after the signing of the No
Child Left Behind Act.
In response to demands by some lobbying organizations for
increased spending on teacher programs, Committee leaders noted
that federal teacher quality funding had increased by more than
35% since President Bush took office, and that this funding had
been linked for the first time ever to accountability for
results through the No Child Left Behind Act. Annual
congressional appropriations for teacher quality grants to
states jumped from $787 million (the final level provided under
President Clinton) to $2.92 billion in FY 2005.
To further support school teachers, the House twice passed
legislation during the 108th Congress to more than triple
current student loan forgiveness available to highly qualified
teachers of math, science, and special education who teach for
five years in high-poverty schools. The Taxpayer-Teacher
Protection Act (H.R. 5186), authored by Education and the
Workforce Committee Chairman John Boehner (R-OH) and 21st
Century Competitiveness Subcommittee Chairman Howard P.
``Buck'' McKeon (R-CA), was signed into law by President Bush
on October 30, 2004. Similar legislation was proposed in 2003
by Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC). His bill, the Teacher Recruitment
and Retention Act (H.R. 438), closely resembled a similar loan
forgiveness proposal included in President Bush's FY 2004 and
FY 2005 budget proposals. The Wilson bill was approved with
overwhelming bipartisan support in the House on July 9, 2003,
but was not acted upon by the Senate. That bill, like the
Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act signed by President Bush,
proposed increasing loan forgiveness from $5,000 to $17,500 for
highly qualified teachers of math, science, or special
education who teach for five years in needy, Title I-eligible
schools.
The desire to provide relief and support for school
teachers was also a major driving factor in the Committee's
successful effort during the 108th Congress to revamp the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Further
details about this effort can be found in other sections of
this report.
Accountability in Federal Education Spending
During the 108th Congress, research and opinion polls
consistently showed Americans believed the most important
factor in improving public schools was not increases in
government spending, but rather an emphasis on high standards
and accountability for results.
Committee leaders pushed back hard during the 108th
Congress against claims by lobbyists that education reform had
been ``underfunded'' by President Bush. Members noted that
since Republicans took control of the House in 1995, federal
education funding had increased significantly. Funding for the
U.S. Department of Education has increased by nearly 150
percent under GOP control of the House, Republicans pointed
out, from $23 billion in FY 1996 to $57 billion in FY 2005.
Chairman John Boehner (R-OH) joined Senate Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Chairman Judd Gregg
(R-NH) during the 108th Congress in calling attention to large
balances of unexpended federal education funds that had gone
unused by states. Some of the funds dated back to the late
years of the Clinton administration. In 2004, Boehner--citing
data released by the U.S. Department of Education--pointed out
that the amount of unexpended federal education funds was
increasing as the No Child Left Behind Act was being
implemented by states and schools across the nation, casting
further doubt on opponents' depiction of the new K-12 law as an
``unfunded mandate.''
On November 20, 2004, the U.S. House approved an omnibus
appropriations bill for FY 2005 that maintains the Republican
commitment to funding education, and ties those funds to
reform. The bill was signed into law by President Bush on
December 8, 2004. Members of the Education and the Workforce
Committee worked closely with appropriators in the 108th
Congress to ensure federal education funds would continue to be
spent only with close links to education reforms that demand
accountability and results. Highlights of education funding
provided under the FY 2005 omnibus appropriations bill include:
Title I Aid for Disadvantaged Students--Funding
for Title I, the cornerstone of the No Child Left Behind Act,
is increased to $12.7 billion in the FY 2005 spending bill. In
fact, because of NCLB, Title I received a larger increase
during the first two years of President George W. Bush's
administration alone than it did during the previous eight
years combined under President Bill Clinton.
Reading First--Funding for the Reading First and
Early Reading First programs is increased to $1.15 billion,
enabling states to ensure all children can read by the time
they reach the third grade through scientific research-based
reading programs.
Improving Teacher Quality--States are provided
$2.91 billion for professional development programs to provide
states and school districts with tools to improve teacher
quality. The bill also provided $179 million to increase the
number of teachers trained in the fields of math and science.
State Assessments--States are provided $412
million to help cover the costs of developing annual reading
and math assessments.
Charter Schools--States are provided $217 million
for charter school grants and $37 million to help enhance
charter school facilities.
Special Education Grants are funded at $11.4
billion, which is the highest level in history and over three
times the amount provided in 1995.
Maximum Pell Grant awards are funded at $4,050.
TRIO and GEAR UP--Funding to help minority and
disadvantaged students prepare for and succeed in college was
increased to $837 million and $306 million, respectively.
Head Start--Funding for Head Start centers is
increased to $6.9 billion. This funding level allows Head Start
to maintain current service levels while ensuring that quality
improvements and training elements are fully implemented.
Education and the Workforce Committee members expressed
concern during the 108th Congress about government data
suggesting federal education funding had increased more quickly
than states could spend the money, with states sitting on
billions in unspent No Child Left Behind and special education
funds. On January 14, 2004, Committee Chairman Boehner released
a majority staff report showing states were sitting on billions
of dollars in unspent federal education aid. The report, ``No
Child Left Behind Funding: Pumping Gas into a Flooded Engine,''
rejected education reform opponents' claims that NCLB was
``underfunded'' by showing that the public education system
could only absorb so much new money at once.
Highlights from the report included:
States were collectively sitting on nearly half a
billion dollars ($469 million) in unspent federal education
funds appropriated for their use during the final years of the
Clinton administration (FY 2000, FY 2001)--before NCLB was even
enacted. Ninety-four percent of these unspent funds were
included in federal school improvement, special education,
Title I, and other programs for economically disadvantaged
students.
States were collectively sitting on $1.6 billion
in unspent federal education funding made available for their
use two or more years ago.
States collectively had $10.3 billion in unspent
federal education funds, all of which was available to them for
at least a year.
A second report released by the U.S. Department of
Education's Budget Services Office on October 1, 2004, showed
states had access to more than $10 billion in unexpended
federal education funding appropriated between FY 2000 and FY
2003. The report also showed that the percentage of federal
funds unspent by states was increasing--not decreasing--as more
and more federal money was pumped into the public education
system.
On February 24, 2003, Chairman Boehner sent a ``Dear
Colleague'' letter to House Republicans and Democrats
highlighting a report by The Josiah Bartlett Center for Public
Policy (www.jbartlett.org) detailing the financial impact of
the No Child Left Behind Act on the state of New Hampshire. The
study estimated the costs associated with complying with NCLB--
providing highly qualified teachers and paraprofessionals, new
testing requirements, technology plans, and special education--
to be approximately $7.7 million. Factoring in the $13.7
million in increased federal education aid coming from NCLB,
the study concluded that New Hampshire would receive an extra
$6 million in federal education aid to spend on other state and
local education priorities in 2003.
On June 10, 2003, Education Reform Subcommittee Chairman
Mike Castle (R-DE) sent a letter to all Members of Congress
rejecting claims that NCLB was ``underfunded.'' Castle pointed
out that authorization levels are spending caps placed on
appropriators--not spending ``promises.'' In the letter, Castle
also pointed out that Democratic leaders and President Bill
Clinton used exactly the same approach to education funding in
1994, which was the last time the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) was reauthorized--yet not a single
Democratic leader had accused President Clinton or then-
Majority Leader Gephardt of providing ``less than promised''
for education. Under a Democrat-controlled Congress and White
House, the total authorization level for the Improving
America's Schools Act of 1994 (IASA) for FY 1995 was $13
billion, Republicans noted, but IASA activities were
appropriated at $10.3 billion for FY 1995--a discrepancy of
$2.7 billion.
In February 2004, Committee leaders highlighted a major
national cost study released by AccountabilityWorks, a non-
profit research organization, which showed that states are
profiting handsomely from the education spending increases
triggered by NCLB.
``[W]e conclude that the charge that NCLB is an `unfunded
mandate' is false [emphasis added]; additionally, we find that
the level of federal funding provided to support implementation
of NCLB requirements has been--and is likely to remain--
sufficient,'' the report's authors wrote.
The authors' analysis estimated states would collectively
receive a surplus of $787 million in federal No Child Left
Behind funding for the 2004-05 school year, a surplus that
could increase to $5 billion by the 2007-08 school year. The
report also recognized states are under no obligation to accept
the federal education funds that accompany the No Child Left
Behind requirements, and cautioned against attempts to
attribute costs to NCLB that the law does not impose.
``States choosing to accept Title I and other federal
dollars should be assured that substantial federal resources
accompany new demands,'' the authors noted. ``There is,
however, no reason to assume that the fundamental federal role
has changed to the point that all new future K-12 needs are now
the responsibility of the federal government.''
On March 25, 2004, five Committee members signed a ``Dear
Colleague'' letter highlighting the fact that the House
Democratic leadership's budget for FY 2005 provided billions
less for the Title I program than the NCLB law technically
authorized, even as leaders of the minority had criticized
President Bush for funding education programs in that manner.
Committee members who signed the Dear Colleague letter included
Chairman Boehner, 21st Century Competitiveness Subcommittee
Chairman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon (R-CA), Rep. Cass Ballenger
(R-NC), Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), and Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-
CO).
Committee Republicans also highlighted a report published
in the Spring 2004 edition of the policy journal Education Next
by two Massachusetts state officials (state board of education
chairman James Peyser and state chief economist Robert
Costrell). The authors concluded the federal government
``overshot the target'' in terms of funding the No Child Left
Behind law by providing more money than some states need to
make it work.
Peyser and Costrell concluded the increased federal aid
states are receiving as a result of the No Child Left Behind
law should cover the costs of the additional reforms required.
They also concluded ``many critics greatly exaggerate the
shortfall of federal resources'' needed to implement the law's
reforms.
``If this spending increase does not fully cover the fiscal
gap [associated with No Child Left Behind's requirements], it
would appear to come pretty close--especially when combined
with state-level spending increases already required under
various state laws and court decisions,'' Peyser and Costrell
wrote. ``Given that many states have been slow to implement the
statewide assessment and accountability systems required by
NCLB, one might even argue that in some instances federal
spending growth has overshot the target.''
Total federal spending for K-12 education grew
significantly from 2001 to 2003 as a result of No Child Left
Behind, Peyser and Costrell noted, resulting in an $8 billion
funding increase that is sufficient--if not more than
sufficient--to allow states to meet NCLB's current
expectations. The authors said federal education spending must
continue to increase in coming years to ensure states continue
to have adequate funding to meet NCLB's objectives, but found
the actual amount needed was far below the huge amounts claimed
by education reform opponents in many states. Additionally,
Peyser and Costrell found the $391 million appropriated by
Congress (FY 2004) for states to design and implement annual
tests for students in grades 3-8 was adequate for the present
time--a conclusion also reached by the independent Government
Accountability Office (GAO). Five states had already met the
NCLB testing requirements before the law even went into effect,
they noted.
Additionally, a May 2004 report from the nonpartisan
Government Accountability Office, requested by Senator George
Voinovich (R-OH), further discredited claims that the No Child
Left Behind Act is an ``unfunded mandate.'' The GAO reviewed
more than 500 different statutes and regulations enacted in
2001 and 2002, including Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
reports about NCLB, and officially concluded NCLB is not an
unfunded mandate.
According to the report, NCLB ``did not meet the UMRA's
[Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995] definition of a mandate
because the requirements were a condition of federal financial
assistance'' and ``any costs incurred by state, local or tribal
governments would result from complying'' with conditions of
receiving the federal funds.
Supporting Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act
of 2001 (NCLB)
The Committee on Education and the Workforce and its
subcommittees conducted eight hearings during the 108th
Congress to study the progress states and local schools were
making in implementing the education reforms included in the
bipartisan No Child Left Behind law (NCLB). These hearings
showed NCLB is helping schools improve learning for children
with disabilities and for students in inner-city schools;
states received more than enough funding toimplement the law;
some states have not done enough to implement the NCLB provisions
allowing children to transfer out of unsafe schools; and some states
and districts could do more to inform parents of their school choice
options under NCLB.
On September 29, 2003, the Subcommittee on Education Reform
held a field hearing in Denver, Colorado, entitled ``Keeping
Schools Safe--The Implementation of No Child Left Behind's
Persistently Dangerous Schools Provisions.'' Rep. Tom Osborne
(R-NE), vice chairman of the Education Reform Subcommittee, and
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) heard testimony from witnesses on
the importance of ensuring a safe learning environment for the
nation's students, a key component of the No Child Left Behind
Act.
Hearings noted that the No Child Left Behind Act contains
provisions to empower parents with more information about
school safety and new choices to ensure students are learning
in a safe environment. The law requires each state receiving
federal money to establish and implement a policy to define
what constitutes a persistently dangerous school. Students
attending a persistently dangerous school must be given the
option to transfer to a safer public school or charter school
within the same school district. In addition, students who are
victims of violent crimes on school property must be given the
option to transfer to a safer school within the school
district.
At the September 29 field hearing, Colorado State Senate
President John Andrews applauded Congress for tying the
persistently dangerous schools provision to federal education
funding.
``No student should have to attend a public school in which
his or her personal safety is constantly at risk. I applaud the
intent of Congress in requiring states to guarantee children an
exit from such schools as a condition of receiving NCLB federal
grant money,'' he said.
Additional witnesses at the field hearing included the
Honorable Bob Schaffer, former U.S. Representative for
Colorado's Fourth Congressional District and member of the U.S.
House Committee on Education and the Workforce from 1997 until
2003; William J. Moloney, the Colorado Commissioner of
Education; and David Smith, the Director of Prevention
Initiatives at the Colorado Department of Education.
On October 20, 2003, the Subcommittee on Education Reform
held a field hearing in Greenville, South Carolina, on whether
states and school districts are providing parents with needed
information to best utilize the educational choice options
provided by the landmark No Child Left Behind Act. The hearing,
entitled ``No Child Left Behind's Education Choice Provisions:
Are States & School Districts Giving Parents the Information
They Need?'' featured a wide range of federal, state, and local
witnesses. Rep. Jim DeMint (R-SC) chaired the field hearing,
and Rep. John Carter (R-TX) also attended.
The hearing highlighted the fact that the No Child Left
Behind Act provides parents with unprecedented information and
options for improving their children's education. In addition,
the law calls for extra help for high-priority schools once
they are identified. The choice provisions include the option
to transfer to a better performing public or charter school in
the same school district and access to free tutoring. Prior to
the hearing, many parents and school choice supporters had
expressed concern that states and school districts were not
doing enough to notify parents fully of their new rights under
the No Child Left Behind law.
Testimony received by the Committee at the October 20, 2003
hearing lent credence to this concern. George Waggoner, a
Greenville parent, testified that the choice to transfer his
daughter, Jessica, to another school was ``great.'' But
Waggoner also noted that he was notified of his options not by
the local school district, as required under the No Child Left
Behind law, but by a local newspaper reporter.
``When we talked to [the local school's principal], she
said our notice came back in the mail. That is when we found
out the school district will not use our correct address, and
sometimes we don't get what they send out,'' he said.
Ms. Nina Rees, Deputy Under Secretary for Innovation and
Improvement at the U.S. Department of Education, testified that
the parental choice provisions of NCLB were implemented
unevenly across the nation during the 2002-2003 school year.
Many states did not have the test score data available to
identify schools in need of improvement by the beginning of the
school year. This meant that parents did not have the needed
information for choice in time. States also took months to
approve initial supplemental service providers, further
delaying parental options, she indicated.
Additionally, Ms. Rees testified that some school districts
``did not make the aggressive outreach one would hope for and,
thus, many families did not really find out what was
available.''
``Some [school districts] made it more difficult for
parents to sign up than they could have * * * by requiring them
to enroll at district headquarters,'' Rees said. ``Some [school
districts] have established what may be unreasonable
contractual requirements with providers, or made it difficult
for outside providers to make use of school facilities.''
Dr. Dana Marie Jeffrey, Vice President of Strategic Sales
for Lightspan, Inc., echoed Ms. Rees' concerns about the need
for proper cooperation between private supplemental service
providers and local school districts.
On March 3, 2004, witnesses testifying before the full U.S.
House Committee on Education and the Workforce told Congress to
``stay the course'' on demanding high standards for all
students under President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act. The
hearing, entitled ``No Child Left Behind: Improving Results for
Children with Disabilities'' and chaired by Committee Chairman
John Boehner (R-OH), focused on the importance of including
students with disabilities in state accountability systems, as
required by the bipartisan education reforms.
Witnesses stressed the importance of the No Child Left
Behind law in requiring states and local school districts to
include students with disabilities in accountability systems.
Witnesses also highlighted the fact that students with
disabilities can achieve academic success if held to high
standards.
Ricki Sabia, mother of a 5th grade student with Down
Syndrome, testified that ``after some initial battles and with
persistent advocacy, we have been able to keep Stephan fully
included in his neighborhood school since kindergarten. He has
always taken the regular assessments with accommodations and
has surprised everyone by doing quite well. The gift that NCLB
has given students with disabilities is the expectation that
they can all learn and achieve.''
Dr. Jane Rhyne, Assistant Superintendent of Programs for
Exceptional Children of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public
Schools (NC), testified on local efforts to integrate students
with disabilities into their accountability programs.
``Though we had an early start on NCLB-type approaches, the
Act provided us with a new set of challenges and truly helped
us refine and deepen our academic focus for all students. I
have seen first hand in Charlotte-Mecklenburg and on technical
assistance and site visits to other school districts that
instructional attention to students with disabilities has been
clearly heightened,'' said Rhyne.
Additional witnesses included Pia Durkin, Superintendent of
the Narragansett Public Schools in Rhode Island, and Dr. Martha
Thurlow, Director of the National Center for Educational
Outcomes.
At a March 8, 2004, field hearing in Columbus, Ohio,
members of the Education and the Workforce Committee were told
that the debate over education funding should not deter Ohio
from striving to implement the No Child Left Behind law.
Several hearing witnesses, including the superintendent of a
major Columbus-area public school district, publicly rejected
the stance taken by lobbyists for the Ohio Education
Association, who were calling for lower education standards and
billions in new spending on top of the billions in new spending
already being provided to states under NCLB.
``We have been challenged to become accountable for the
academic achievement of all our students,'' said Dr. Richard
Ross, superintendent of the Reynoldsburg (OH) City School
district.
``[To] argue that this is an impossible goal is ludicrous *
* * It is my opinion that financial resources are not the most
important ingredient [in improving student achievement.] The
most essential pre-requisite for success with NCLB is that the
student/teacher/administrator individually believes that it is
possible for them,'' said Ross.
Mr. Ronald Tomalis, counselor to U.S. Secretary of
Education Rod Paige, noted Ohio has received a 45 percent
increase in federal education aid under No Child Left Behind,
an increase of $206 million in annual funding over the pre-NCLB
level, bringing the total to approximately $666 million for FY
2004 in annual aid to the state. Tomalis noted that as of the
time of the hearing, Ohio still had more than $300 million in
federal education funds available that were provided by
Congress from 2000 through 2002. Some of those funds had been
available to Ohio for more than three and a half years--longer
than President Bush had even been in office, majority staff
aides noted.
Hearing participants considered a number of different
studies issued that offered widely varying estimates about the
costs associated with implementing NCLB in Ohio and other
states. The hearing featured testimony from Dr. Howard Fleeter,
co-author of a study touted nationally by the National
Education Association (NEA)--a Washington, D.C. based union--
that suggested the federal government must provide more than $1
billion in extra annual funding before Ohio schools, which
prior to NCLB were expected only to educate 75 percent of their
students, should be asked to strive for 100 percent
proficiency. But Fleeter agreed NCLB's goal--urging states to
close achievement gaps between disadvantaged students and other
students--is the right objective, and other participants
challenged the assumptions made in the report.
Ted Rebarber, president of the non-profit education
research organization AccountabilityWorks and author of a
national cost study showing states are profiting financially
from the federal funding windfall created by NCLB, highlighted
several major points of concern associated with the Ohio cost
study.
``In developing our own analysis of the cost and revenues
associated with NCLB, we found that recent funding increases,
as well as likely future increases for the duration of the
statute, were sufficient to pay for ambitious initiatives to
comply with all the specific mandates,'' said Rebarber. ``[The]
conclusion [in the Ohio study] is simply not supported by the
evidence provided.''
The hearing, entitled ``The Status of No Child Left Behind
Implementation in Ohio,'' was chaired by Committee Chairman
Boehner and attended by Rep. Pat Tiberi (R-OH), Rep. Tim Ryan
(D-OH), and Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN).
On April 15, 2004, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce heard testimony from federal, state and local
education officials on the flexibility provisions available to
all fifty states and every local school under the No Child Left
Behind law.
``Given the great flexibility extended to states regarding
the implementation of provisions in No Child Left Behind, all
fifty states have unique plans--and Georgia is no exception,''
said Kathy Cox, Georgia State Superintendent of Schools. ``Like
many other states, Georgia has taken advantage of statutory
flexibility in areas such as the definition of Basic,
Proficient, and Advanced students; the minimum number of
subgroup accountability; the definition of Full Academic Year;
and the timeline for reaching 100 percent proficiency.''
Cox also explained that the Georgia State Board of
Education was able to empower local school districts with even
more flexibility than some states by offering them the option
of including an additional academic indicator in their
accountability plans. While many states decided to use only
attendance as their academic indicator, Georgia state officials
offered a variety of options to their local schools, including
attendance rate, retention rate, the percent exceeding
standards on academic assessments, and assessments on writing,
science and social studies.
Dr. Jeffrey McDaniel, Director of School Improvement and
Entitlement Programs for Floyd County (GA) Schools, offered
examples of how local school systems can use this new
flexibility to benefit all students. For example, the Floyd
County school system implemented a modified calendar for the
2003-04 school year, allowing it to provide an additional
thirteen days of academic instruction through intersession
periods. Since the program's inception, the school system had
operated three intersession periods, serving a minimum of 500
students per session.
Dr. McDaniel pointed to an example of the program's early
impact on one student in particular. After this student
attended intersession, he began increasing his visits to the
media center. When a media specialist praised the student for
visiting the media center, the student told her, ``I love to
read because now I know how.''
Dr. Eugene Hickok, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Education,
testified on the flexibility available to every state and local
school district through No Child Left Behind. He also provided
testimony on additional flexibility granted to states and local
school districts by the Department of Education for measuring
adequate yearly progress (AYP).
Dr. Hickok discussed the flexibility provisions provided to
states and local schools in how they spend the federal
resources they receive, noting that schools are allowed to
spend up to 50 percent of their non-Title I money as they see
fit. Local schools do not need to apply to federal or state
officials first--the flexibility is automatic. No Child Left
Behind also includes demonstration projects to empower states
and local school districts with even greater flexibility for
how they spend the federal resources they receive. The ``State-
Flex'' program allows states to spend 100 percent of their
federal state activity funding for any educational purposes
designed to improve student achievement. The ``Local-Flex''
program permits local educational agencies to spend 100 percent
of their non-Title I funding however they choose.
The hearing, entitled ``No Child Left Behind: Improving
Academic Achievement Through Flexibility and Accountability for
Schools,'' was chaired by Committee Chairman Boehner and
additional participants included Rep. Max Burns (R-GA) and Rep.
Denise Majette (D-GA).
At a Full Committee hearing in Washington, D.C., on April
24, 2004, a former National Teacher of the Year praised the No
Child Left Behind Act and said states need to provide more
accurate information to schools and teachers about what they
are required (and aren't required) to do under the law. The
comments were made by 1993 National Teacher of the Year Tracey
Bailey during a hearing on NCLB's teacher quality requirements.
``[No Child Left Behind's] provisions are designed to get
teachers the help they need in the few areas where teachers may
not be highly qualified in a subject area. They now have the
time and resources in order to fix that shortcoming,'' said
Bailey, a former physics, chemistry and Advanced Placement
biology teacher in Florida.
Ross Weiner, Policy Director of the Education Trust,
testified on the importance of No Child Left Behind's highly
qualified teacher provisions in ensuring the nation's most
disadvantaged schools have the qualified teachers they need to
improve student academic achievement.
``These provisions represent the first major federal
commitment to ensuring that all students are taught by
qualified teachers, and constitute important progress in the
quest for educational excellence and equality,'' said Weiner.
``They are the `support side' of this ambitious law--the
substantive provisions with the most potential to actually
improve teaching and instruction in previously low-performing
schools.''
The hearing highlighted the fact that the No Child Left
Behind law asks each state--in exchange for billions of dollars
in federal teacher quality aid--to develop and implement a plan
to place a highly qualified teacher in every public classroom
by the conclusion of the 2005-2006 school year. States have
significant flexibility in defining what constitutes a highly
qualified teacher, participants noted. At a minimum, teachers
must have full state certification, a Bachelor's degree in any
subject, and demonstrate competency in core academic subjects
they teach. Individual states--not the federal government--
design the test to assess competency in core academic subjects,
which may include rigorous state academic tests; a Bachelor's
or advanced degree in a core academic subject; or the high,
objective, uniform state standard of evaluation (HOUSSE) for
veteran teachers.
The hearing was entitled ``The Importance of Highly
Qualified Teachers in Raising Academic Achievement.''
On May 27, 2004, the Subcommittee on 21st Century
Competitiveness held a field hearing on the importance of
highly qualified teachers in improving academic achievement for
all students, regardless of race, ethnicity, geography,
disability, or income. The hearing, entitled ``Highly Qualified
Teachers and Raising Student Achievement,'' was held in
Phoenix, Arizona, and chaired by Rep. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
(R-CA).
Mr. Raymond Simon, Assistant Secretary for Elementary and
Secondary Education at the U.S. Department of Education,
testified on the importance of highly qualified teachers in
raising student achievement. He also discussed the resources
available at the federal level to assist states in placing a
highly qualified teacher in every classroom.
Dr. Lewis C. Solmon, Executive Vice President and Director
of Teacher Advancement Programs at Milken Family Foundation,
provided information about the foundation's Teacher Advancement
Program (TAP). According to Dr. Solmon's testimony, the Teacher
Advancement Program builds on No Child Left Behind through five
primary principles--multiple career paths, performance-based
accountability, market-driven compensation, ongoing applied
professional growth, and expanding the supply of high quality
teachers.
Additional witnesses included Dr. Karen Butterfield, Deputy
Associate Superintendent for Innovative and Exemplary Programs
at the Arizona Department of Education, and Dr. Laura Palmer
Noone, President of the University of Phoenix.
On June 23, 2004, during a hearing held in Washington,
D.C., urban school officials told members of the Committee that
No Child Left Behind is having a positive impact on student
achievement in the nation's inner-city schools.
Dr. Michael Casserly, executive director of the Council of
the Great City Schools, a coalition of 64 of the nation's
largest urban public school systems, testified at the hearing.
``Our most recent report attempted to answer the question,
`Have urban schools improved student achievement since No Child
Left Behind was enacted?' '' Casserly said. ``The answer
appears to be `yes.' ''
``Between the 2001-02 and 2002-03 school years (the period
since NCLB), the percentage of urban fourth graders scoring at
or above proficiency levels on their respective state reading
tests increased from 42.9 percent to 47.8 percent--an increase
of 4.9 percentage points,'' Casserly testified. ``The
percentage of urban fourth graders scoring at or above
proficiency levels on their respective state math tests
increased from 44.2 percent to 51.0 percent--an increase of 6.8
percentage points.''
Dr. Eric Smith, superintendent of Anne Arundel County
Public Schools (MD), testified that the No Child Left Behind
law is instrumental to long term educational, economic and
social health in America, and cited recent test scores from his
district as an example of rising student achievement.
In 2003, 63.8 percent of Anne Arundel County third graders
scored proficient and advanced on state reading assessments,
Smith reported. In 2004, 78.5 percent of third graders scored
proficient and advanced. Statewide, 71 percent of third graders
passed the reading exam in 2004, as compared to 58 percent in
2003. According to Dr. Smith, limited English proficient (LEP)
students posted an impressive 27 point increase in reading
scores in 2004.
Paul Vallas, chief executive officer for the school
district of Philadelphia, testified on the importance of
disaggregating test data by subgroup to determine if the
academic achievement gap is closing between disadvantaged
students and their more fortunate peers.
``The greatest tool that NCLB provides to achieve this
objective [closing the achievement gap]--and, I suspect, the
greatest object of consternation of some of my colleagues--is
the disaggregation of test scores by subgroup. For the first
time, we are able to shine a spotlight on groups that have been
historically underserved,'' said Vallas. ``With this
recognition comes our obligation to provide whatever resources
we have to correct this historic imbalance, and the structure
of the Act provides districts with the opportunity to do so.''
Dr. Marcus Newsome, superintendent of Newport News (VA)
Public Schools, testified that because of the No Child Left
Behind Act, school districts have been prompted to focus more
intently on existing achievement gaps and create solutions to
close the gaps. One school in Dr. Newsome's district, An
Achievable Dream Academy, has had success in lowering the
achievement gaps between disadvantaged students and their
peers. The public school is supported by private businesses and
has helped disadvantaged and minority students make significant
academic gains.
Dr. Margaret Raymond, director of the Center for Research
on Education Outcomes at the Hoover Institution at Stanford
University, presented evidence showing that accountability
systems, the cornerstone of the No Child Left Behind Act, are
instrumental to improving student academic achievement.
The hearing, entitled ``No Child Left Behind: Raising
Student Achievement in America's Big City Schools,'' was
chaired by Committee Chairman Boehner.
Revamping the No Child Left Behind Website
On September 14, 2004, Education and the Workforce
Committee Chairman John Boehner (R-OH) unveiled a new Committee
website designed to provide parents, teachers, school
administrators, and Members of Congress with the facts about
the No Child Left Behind Act and its implementation.
Highlights of the No Child Left Behind website included:
State-by-State Implementation Guide--A new 50-
state map provided users with state-by-state information on the
progress being made in implementing the education reform law.
Website users could click on any state to find a link to a U.S.
Department of Education fact sheet providing some of the latest
news about the progress being made to boost student
achievement.
No Child Left Behind Frequently Asked Questions
(FAQs)--The website featured a detailed guide created by
Committee majority staff answering ``frequently asked
questions'' and correcting common misconceptions about the law.
Parents' Rights Guide--Low-income parents and
students have new hope and new educational choices as a result
of the No Child Left Behind Act, which provides extra help to
both students and struggling schools, Committee members noted.
The Committee's new website included sections devoted to
helping parents understand their right to receive free private
tutoring for their children and/or the right to send their
children to a better, safer public school or charter school.
News and Resources--The website allowed users to
access the most up-to-date news and resources released by the
Committee's majority members. This section included press
statements, editorials and articles, fact sheets and Dear
Colleague letters.
State-by-State Federal Funding Information--As a
result of No Child Left Behind, states are receiving record
levels of federal education funding, Committee members noted.
The NCLB website offered users a state-by-state federal funding
guide showing how much money individual states are receiving
overall, specifically for NCLB, and for other federal education
programs.
Improving Results and Local Control in Vocational and
Technical Education
Vocational and technical education under the Carl D.
Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act, known as the
Perkins program, plays an important role in secondary and
postsecondary education systems in states and local
communities. According to the National Center for Education
Statistics, 66 percent of all public secondary schools have one
or more vocational and technical education programs with
approximately 96 percent of high school students taking at
least one vocational and technical course. Vocational and
technical education is an important postsecondary option as
well. More than 2,600 postsecondary sub-baccalaureate
institutions, such as community colleges, technical institutes,
skill centers, and other public and private colleges, also
offer vocational and technical education.
To help states and local communities strengthen vocational
and technical education, the Education and the Workforce
Committee approved the Vocational and Technical Education for
the Future Act (H.R. 4496) on July 21, 2004. The bill was
authored by Education Reform Subcommittee Chairman Mike Castle
(R-DE) and was approved in both the Subcommittee and Full
Committee by voice vote, with no recorded opposition.
The Vocational and Technical Education for the Future Act
built on previous reforms to the Perkins program that increased
the focus on academic and technical skills, and on ensuring
students complete their programs and are equipped to transition
into postsecondary opportunities including further education or
successful employment. The bill reaffirmed the notion that
states and local communities should have the final say when it
comes to educational choices for their students. To assist
states as they work to improve vocational and technical
education, the bill sought to enhance learning opportunities
for students, strengthen state and local accountability, and
streamline funding.
A more detailed summary of the Vocational and Technical
Education for the Future Act is included later in this report,
in the summary of actions by the Education Reform Subcommittee.
Boosting America's Armed Forces
To support members of America's armed forces, the 108th
Congress passed legislation to ease the financial burden of
student loans on military personnel called to active duty, and
also lent support to a bill that would ensure equal access to
college campuses for ROTC and military recruiters. The
successful effort was led by members of the Education and the
Workforce Committee.
To provide student loan relief for U.S. military reservists
called to active duty, Committee members sought to extend the
U.S. Secretary of Education's authority to provide assistance
and flexibility to military personnel transferring in and out
of postsecondary education during a time of war. Rep. John
Kline (R-MN) introduced H.R. 1412, the Higher Education Relief
Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES). The bill was
signed into law by President Bush on August 18, 2003.
Members of the House united in 2001 and unanimously passed
similar legislation providing the Secretary of Education waiver
authority in the midst of the tragedy of September 11th. The
Kline HEROES law continues this support for military personnel,
allowing the Secretary to address the needs of those serving
now, and provide flexibility and relief for those who may need
it in the future.
Committee members noted that many of the men and women
serving in conflicts overseas are U.S. military reservists who
are college and university students participating in federal
financial aid programs. The HEROES law extends waiver authority
that allows the U.S. Secretary of Education to excuse such
military personnel from their federal student loan obligations
while they are on active duty. For example, the families of
military reservists who left their jobs when called to active
duty could be relieved from making student loan payments during
the time of service, and the families of borrowers serving on
active duty could be given relief from collection calls from
lenders while the conflict is taking place.
HEROES also allows the Secretary of Education to quickly
react to situations not yet existing in order to provide the
flexibility and protections necessary to best assist military
personnel with the transition to and from postsecondary
education as they work to serve our nation. Additionally, the
law asks postsecondary institutions to provide a full refund of
tuition and fees to students for the period they were not able
to complete because of their service, and minimizes
requirements for reapplication, making it easier for military
personnel to reenter their postsecondary education when they
return from active duty. It also asks lending institutions
holding or servicing federal student loans to provide all
available benefits, deferrals, and flexibility to ensure the
men and women of our armed services are not placed in financial
hardship because of their service to the nation.
Chairman John Boehner (R-OH) and other members of the
Education and the Workforce Committee also worked with Rep.
Mike Rogers (R-AL) during the 108th Congress to pass the ROTC
and Military Recruiter Equal Access to Campus Act of 2004 (H.R.
3966) through the House. The bill sought to ensure ROTC and
U.S. military recruiters have fair and equal access for
recruiting purposes on college campuses. The bill would have
amended the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and strengthened
standards set forth in the 1996 Solomon Amendment, which grants
the Secretary of Defense power to deny federal funding to
institutions of higher learning if they prohibit or prevent
ROTC or military recruitment on campus.
The ROTC and Military Recruiter Equal Access to Campus Act
proposed:
Expanding current law to prohibit schools that do
not permit ROTC or military recruiting from receiving funds
from the Departments of Homeland Security, Energy, Justice,
Transportation, and the CIA;
Requiring schools that accept federal funds to
allow the Secretary of each military department to maintain a
unit of the Senior Officer Training Corps at that institution,
should such Secretary elect to do so;
Clarifying current law to guarantee colleges and
universities that accept federal funds provide access to
military recruiters that is ``equal in quality and scope'' to
the access granted to other campus recruiters; and
Clarifying a current provision that excludes
federal financial aid for students from the types of funds that
would be denied to colleges that fail to comply with the
provisions of the Act.
Strengthening Libraries & Museums
On September 25, 2003, President Bush signed the Museum and
Library Services Act into law. The legislation, authored by
Select Education Subcommittee Chairman Pete Hoekstra (R-MI),
provides federal support for libraries and museums in
coordination with state, local, and private efforts. Enactment
of the bill was a longstanding priority for the Education and
the Workforce Committee, with similar legislation having passed
the Committee with bipartisan support in the 107th Congress.
Libraries and museums play a central role in communities
across America through literacy programs, educational
activities, cultural enrichment, historical preservation, and
many more initiatives that serve citizens of all ages,
Committee members noted. Hoekstra's Museum and Library Services
Act modifies and streamlines programs to strengthen museums and
libraries in communities across America. In addition, the
measure helps to build on the No Child Left Behind Act by
ensuring that library activities are coordinated with
activities under NCLB, encouraging effective cooperation
between the learning resources at libraries and classrooms in
schools across the country.
Fighting Child Abuse and Family Violence
To protect some of America's most vulnerable children, the
Education and the Workforce Committee led efforts during the
108th Congress to enact two bills aimed at preventing child
abuse and protecting at-risk youth. Both bills received
bipartisan support in the House and were signed into law by
President Bush.
The Keeping Children and Families Safe Act (H.R. 14),
authored by Select Education Subcommittee Chairman Pete
Hoekstra (R-MI), reauthorizes the Child Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act (CAPTA). The law also expands services for
infants and young children born with life-threatening
conditions, ensuring increased opportunities for adoption.
Signed into law by President Bush on June 25, 2003, the
Keeping Children and Families Safe Act builds upon changes made
during the previous CAPTA reauthorization to ensure states have
the necessary resources and flexibility for identifying and
addressing the issues of child abuse and neglect and family
violence, and for supporting effective methods of prevention
and treatment.
President Bush also signed the Runaway, Homeless, and
Missing Children Protection Act (H.R. 1925), a bill introduced
by Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) to help locate and recover missing
and exploited children, and to support community-based programs
that provide basic needs to runaway and homeless youth and
their families, including shelter, food, clothing, healthcare,
and counseling. The law also authorizes funds for preventative
and educational programs, leading efforts to reduce the numbers
of at-risk children nationwide.
The first substantive legislation by a freshman member of
Congress to be signed into law in 2003, the Runaway, Homeless,
and Missing Children Protection Act also authorizes funding for
the Presidential initiative that created maternity group homes,
which are transitional living programs for young mothers and
their children. The homes, included in the Transitional Living
Program, provide pregnant youth and young mothers aged 16-21
with food and shelter, as well as an extensive array of
parenting programs. Mothers participating in these group homes
learn about child development, family budgeting, health and
nutrition, and parenting skills, in order to prepare them to be
self-sufficient and economically independent mothers.
C. FULL COMMITTEE ACCOMPLISHMENTS (PART 3): WORKFORCE POLICY
House Education and the Workforce Committee members devoted
great energy and attention during the 108th Congress to the
needs of American workers and their families. President Bush
and members of the Committee worked successfully on a variety
of fronts to modernize outdated federal laws that stifle
freedom and innovation and help working families meet the
challenges they face in today's changing economy. These efforts
included enhancing job training programs, improving access to
quality health care, and strengthening pension security.
As of December 2004, there was abundant evidence that the
pro-growth, job-creating agenda advocated by President Bush and
the leadership of the 108th Congress had begun paying dividends
for American working families. According to official government
data, more than 2.4 million jobs were created between August
2003 and November 2004, and employment increased during that
time period in almost all 50 states. The unemployment rate in
November 2004, an estimated 5.4%, was lower than the average
rate of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, and the average
unemployment rate in 46 out of 50 states between August 2003
and November 2004 was lower than that historical average.
According to a household employment survey issued by the Bureau
of Labor Statistics (BLS), almost 1.7 million more Americans
were working in November 2004 than were working when President
Bush took office in January 2001.
Federal data show President Bush's policies helped
Americans rebound from the effects of the economic recession
that began under President Bill Clinton and was exacerbated by
the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. According to BLS
data, approximately 908,000 new payroll jobs were added after
the recession, and 3.4 million more Americans were working as
of November 2004 than were working during the recession. An
estimated 337,000 new payroll jobs were added in October 2004
alone.
The combination of tax relief and job creation emphasized
by President Bush and supported by the 107th and 108th Congress
has helped to increase family income in the United States.
Median income after taxes for married couples with at least two
children reached a record high of $57,330 in 2003, an increase
of 2.2% from the 2000 level, according to a study released by
the Joint Economic Committee.
Economic activity in the U.S. manufacturing sector had
grown for 17 consecutive months as of October 2004, according
to BLS.
Members of the House Committee on Education and the
Workforce supported the economic policies that encouraged this
growth, and took action to build on it during the 108th
Congress through reforms in federal labor law aimed at
strengthening security and prosperity for working families in a
changing economy. These actions are summarized in the Full
Committee and subcommittee summaries that follow.
HIGHLIGHTS: Workforce Accomplishments, January 2003-December 2004
A summary of some of the major actions taken by President
Bush and the Education and the Workforce Committee during the
108th Congress to update federal labor and workforce law:
Protecting Worker Pensions and Retirement Security
Members of the Education and the Workforce Committee worked
during the 108th Congress to help worker pension plans stay
afloat in the short term as the groundwork was being laid for
broad, long-term reforms to strengthen the defined benefit
pension system. Under the Committee's leadership, the 108th
Congress protected workers' retirement savings by enacting
short-term pension reforms, including a temporary replacement
for the 30-year Treasury bond interest rate used by many
employers to determine pension fund contributions. The House
also passed legislation, written by Committee members and
supported by President Bush, that sought to give rank-and-file
workers more control over 401(k) pension plans and better
access to quality investment advice regarding their retirement
savings.
Replacing the 30-Year Treasury Rate. To provide security
and stability to worker pension plans, the House and Senate
agreed to bipartisan legislation--the Pension Funding Equity
Act (H.R. 3108)--to provide a short-term replacement for the
current 30-year Treasury bond interest rate used by many
employers to calculate the amount of money they must set aside
in their employee pension plans. President Bush signed the
measure into law on April 10, 2004.
Expanding Pension Protections for Workers. On May 14, 2003,
the House passed the Pension Security Act (H.R. 1000),
legislation authored by Education and the Workforce Committee
Chairman John Boehner (R-OH) and Employer-Employee Relations
Subcommittee Chairman Sam Johnson (R-TX) to give workers
significant new retirement security protections. The bill--
passed originally by the Committee and the House in 2002 in
response to the collapse of the Enron Corporation and the
shortcomings that collapse further exposed in the nation's
outdated pension laws--proposed giving workers new freedom to
diversify their retirement savings within three years;
expanding worker access to investment advice to help them
manage their retirement accounts; empowering workers to enable
them to hold company insiders accountable for abuses; and
giving workers better information about their pensions.
H.R. 1000's investment advice provisions were essentially
identical to legislation authored by Chairman Boehner that
passed the House as a stand-alone bill (H.R. 2269, the
Retirement Security Advice Act) during the 107th Congress. The
measure, first offered by Boehner during the 106th Congress
(1999-2000), sought to allow employers to provide their workers
with access to professional investment advice as long as
advisers met strict disclosure requirements and adhered to new
fiduciary safeguards to ensure workers received quality advice
solely in their best interests. H.R. 2269 passed the House on
November 15, 2001--before the Enron collapse was dominating
headlines--with 64 House Democrats joining Republicans in
voting to pass the measure. The provisions were incorporated
into H.R. 1000 and passed again by the House in the 108th
Congress.
Laying the Groundwork for Comprehensive Pension Reforms. On
September 14, 2004, Chairman Boehner outlined six principles
intended to help guide congressional efforts to protect worker
retirement security and modernize America's pension laws. Among
the principles outlined by Boehner: (1) Congress should
implement a permanent interest rate to accurately calculate
employers' pension funding promises; (2) Congress should
require companies to fully fund their plans; (3) Congress
should reduce funding volatility in pension plans to ensure
that employers make adequate and consistent payments to their
plans; (4) employers and unions shouldn't make promises to
workers they know can't be kept; (5) workers deserve more
accurate and meaningful disclosure about the status of their
pension plan; and (6) Congress should ensure that hybrid plans,
such as cash balance pensions, remain a viable part of the
defined benefit system.
A more detailed account of the Committee's efforts during
the 108th Congress to protect worker pensions and retirement
security is included later in this report, in the summary of
actions by the Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee.
Strengthening America's Job Training System
A major goal for members of the House Education and the
Workforce Committee during the 108th Congress was to strengthen
the nation's community-based job training system through
reauthorization of the 1998 Workforce Investment Act (WIA). WIA
programs provide support for job training and retraining
services for an estimated 18 million American workers,
according to 2004 federal data. Republican members of the
Education and the Workforce Committee sought to renew the law
and strengthen it during the 108th Congress, arguing the law's
services were badly needed by workers in communities across the
nation who had lost their jobs or were seeking new jobs as a
result of the recession that began in 2000 under President
Clinton. Republicans also sought to remove obstacles in federal
law that discourage faith-based organizations from bringing
their unique talents and compassion to the nation's worker
training system.
In May 2003, the House approved the Workforce Reinvestment
& Adult Education Act (H.R. 1261), authored by 21st Century
Competitiveness Subcommittee Chairman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
(R-CA) to renew and strengthen the WIA law. The measure
included important provisions that would have streamlined
duplicative bureaucracies and allowed faith-based organizations
to participate in federal job training programs without
surrendering their religious identities.
The importance of worker training and education was
emphasized further in March 2004 when Federal Reserve Board
Chairman Alan Greenspan testified before the Committee, saying
that strengthening worker training and education programs was
critical to putting Americans back to work and creating high-
wage American jobs.
On June 3, 2004, following Senate passage of its own
version of the WIA reauthorization bill, the House appointed
conferees to negotiate a final bill with the Senate. However,
Senate Democratic leaders refused to allow the Senate to
appoint conferees to work with the House, and they stuck to
that position throughout the remainder of the 108th Congress.
Between June 2004 and November 2004, Committee Republicans
repeatedly called on Senate Democratic leaders to drop their
opposition to a House-Senate WIA conference, to no avail.
In December 2004, Education and the Workforce Committee
Chairman John Boehner (R-OH) indicated reauthorization of the
Workforce Investment Act and enactment of the McKeon job
training reforms would be high priorities for the Committee in
the 109th Congress.
A more detailed account of the Education and the Workforce
Committee's efforts to strengthen the nation's job training
system during the 108th Congress is included later in this
report, in the summary of actions by the 21st Century
Competitiveness Subcommittee.
Expanding Health Care Access for Working Families
During and prior to the 108th Congress, President Bush
called repeatedly on Congress to pass legislation establishing
Association Health Plans (AHPs) to help uninsured working
families gain access to quality health coverage. Led by members
of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, the House
passed AHP legislation during the 108th Congress with
bipartisan support. The legislation, which stalled in the
Senate due to a lack of bipartisan support, took on a new
importance as federal statistics released in August 2004
revealed the number of Americans without health insurance had
increased to 45 million.
On June 19, 2003, the Republican-led House passed the Small
Business Health Fairness Act (H.R. 660) with the support of 36
House Democrats. The bill, introduced by a bipartisan group of
members including Employer-Employee Subcommittee Chairman Sam
Johnson (R-TX), proposed allowing small businesses to band
together through associations and purchase quality health care
for workers and their families at a lower cost. Committee
leaders noted the bill would increase small businesses'
bargaining power with health care providers, give them freedom
from costly state-mandated benefit packages, and lower their
overhead costs by as much as 30%, helping such employers
provide quality health benefits for workers.
The House passed the measure again on May 13, 2004 as H.R.
4281 to reiterate its commitment to helping the millions of
Americans who have no health insurance.
A more detailed summary of the efforts to expand health
care access for working families is included later in this
report in the summary of actions by the Employer-Employee
Relations Subcommittee.
Providing Personal Reemployment Accounts for Workers
The Education and the Workforce Committee took action
during the 108th Congress to create new and innovative tools to
help unemployed Americans find good-paying jobs.
Rep. Jon Porter (R-NV) led the drive to create Personal
Reemployment Accounts (PRAs) to help unemployed working
families. The PRA accounts, first proposed by President Bush,
would provide up to $3,000 each to help unemployed Americans
return to work quickly. With the accounts, workers could use
the funds to purchase job training, child care, transportation
services, relocation services, career counseling, computer
classes, housing assistance, skill assessment services and
other important services. Recipients finding work within 13
weeks could keep the unused portion of the funds as a
reemployment bonus.
In early 2003, Porter introduced legislation to authorize a
nationwide PRA initiative. The Education and the Workforce
Committee approved Porter's legislation on March 5, 2003.
In early 2004, President Bush offered a PRA proposal to
allow demonstration and pilot project funding under the
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) to be used by states and local
workforce investment boards to offer these accounts. Porter
introduced a similar proposal, the Worker Reemployment Accounts
Act (H.R. 4444), and it passed the House on June 3, 2004. Late
in 2004, the U.S. Department of Labor selected seven states to
test the effectiveness of a PRA demonstration project. The
states chosen were Florida, Idaho, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Montana, Texas, and West Virginia.
A more detailed account of the Education and the Workforce
Committee's effort to provide personal reemployment accounts
for American workers during the 108th Congress is included
later in this report, in the summary of actions by the 21st
Century Competitiveness Subcommittee.
Building on the Success of the 1996 Welfare Reform Law
One of the most successful social policies ever enacted,
the 1996 welfare reform law has transformed the lives of
millions of families and helped them achieve self-sufficiency.
Renewing and strengthening the successful 1996 law was a key
goal for the Education and the Workforce Committee in the 108th
Congress.
On February 13, 2003, the House passed the Personal
Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act (H.R. 4) to
build upon the 1996 reforms, led by 21st Century
Competitiveness Subcommittee Chairman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
(R-CA) and other key members. The measure, based on President
Bush's reform blueprint, proposed strengthening work
requirements under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) block grant program to help move more welfare recipients
into productive jobs and would have boosted child care funding.
However, the Senate did not pass legislation to reauthorize the
welfare reform law during the 108th Congress. In December 2004,
Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Boehner (R-
OH) indicated the long-sought extension of the welfare reform
law would be a high priority for the Committee in the 109th
Congress.
A more detailed account of the Education and the Workforce
Committee's effort to build on the success of the 1996 welfare
reform law is included later in this report, in the summary of
actions by the 21st Century Competitiveness Subcommittee.
Protecting Workers' Right to Overtime Pay
Members of the Education and the Workforce Committee worked
closely with the Bush administration during the 108th Congress
to give overtime protections to millions of American workers in
danger of being denied overtime pay due to outdated federal
labor laws.
At the outset of the 108th Congress, federal regulations
implementing the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the federal
law guaranteeing overtime rights and other protections to
workers, had not been substantially changed in more than five
decades. As a result of these antiquated laws, Bush
administration officials argued, overtime pay could be unfairly
denied to someone earning as little as $8,060 a year.
On August 23, 2004, new U.S. Department of Labor rules were
put into effect by the Bush administration specifying that any
worker earning less than $23,660 annually is automatically
entitled to overtime pay. Under the final rule, thousands of
workers who previously were denied overtime rights immediately
became eligible for overtime pay.
Some attempted to portray the new rules as an attack on
American workers, falsely claiming the rules would
``eliminate'' overtime pay for blue collar (low and middle-
income) workers and strip protections away from firefighters,
police, and workers in other key professions.
The attacks, however, were challenged by the Labor
Department, which noted the final overtime rule makes clear
that blue collar and union workers do not lose overtime,
clearly stating that ``blue collar'' workers are entitled to
overtime pay and that neither the FLSA nor the final rule
relieved an employer from its contractual obligations under a
collective bargaining agreement. The Labor Department also
noted the final rule strengthens overtime protections for
police officers, fire fighters, paramedics, EMTs, first
responders, and licensed practical nurses, ensuring that
workers in these occupations cannot lose their overtime rights.
The rule also specified that veterans do not risk losing
overtime, making clear that veteran status does not affect a
worker's overtime pay.
Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Boehner
(R-OH), Workforce Protections Subcommittee Chairman Charlie
Norwood (R-GA), and other Committee Republicans supported the
Bush administration during the 108th Congress in its efforts to
provide new overtime protections to workers, and are expected
to continue doing so in the 109th Congress as special interests
seek to repeal the new rights given to workers.
A more detailed account of the Education and the Workforce
Committee's efforts during the 108th Congress to support new
overtime protections for workers is included later in this
report, in the summary of actions by the Workforce Protections
Subcommittee.
Strengthening Employment Rights for Military Reservists and
Veterans
Education and the Workforce Committee members worked with
President Bush and the U.S. Department of Labor during the
108th Congress to protect the employment rights and benefits of
service men and women returning to civilian life.
The 1994 Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment
Rights Act (USERRA) provides veterans and reservists returning
from active duty with reemployment rights and protects them
against discrimination by their employer on the basis of their
recently completed military service or current military
obligations. It also requires that reservists and service
members returning from active duty who are reemployed by their
previous civilian employers be given all the benefits of such
employment as if they had been continuously employed and not
served on active duty.
In November 2003, Education and the Workforce Committee
Chairman John Boehner (R-OH) sent a letter to the Labor
Department suggesting additional clarity was needed for
employers and workers about their respective rights and
responsibilities under the 1994 law. Unfortunately, Boehner
noted in the letter, the Clinton Administration did not
supplement the law with clear regulations giving both service
people and employers the necessary guidance as to their rights
and responsibilities. For instance, once a reservist returns
from active duty, questions often arise with respect to his or
her pension benefits, health care coverage, entitlement to
leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, and other benefit
programs, Boehner observed.
On September 20, 2004, the U.S. Department of Labor
proposed new rules to clarify and strengthen employment
protections for veterans and reservists returning from active
duty. The Department also signed a Memorandum of Understanding
with the Department of Justice to strengthen enforcement and
protect the benefits available under USERRA, ensuring faster
resolution of cases and quicker enforcement action by the
government when necessary.
Ensuring Timely Delivery of Workers' Compensation Benefits
for Energy Employees
On October 9, 2004, the House and Senate overwhelmingly
approved legislation (included in H.R. 4200, the Department of
Defense Authorization conference report) to ensure the timely
delivery of workers' compensation benefits under the Energy
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act
(EEOICPA) to energy employees for illnesses resulting from
exposure to toxic substances at U.S. Department of Energy
facilities. The measure requires the Labor Department to
administer the new benefit program, which is intended to
provide a simple, fair, and uniform workers' compensation
system for energy workers. Education and the Workforce
Committee members led efforts to ensure that program benefits
are provided to workers in a timely and efficient manner.
President Bush signed the measure into law on October 28, 2004.
A more detailed account of the Education and the Workforce
Committee's efforts to ensure the timely delivery of workers'
compensation benefits for energy employees is included later in
this report, in the summary of actions by the Workforce
Protections Subcommittee.
Strengthening Union Democracy and Improving Accountability
& Transparency on Behalf of Union Members
Strengthening the democratic rights of rank-and-file labor
union members has been an ongoing priority for members of the
Education and the Workforce Committee.
During the 108th Congress, Committee leaders, including
Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee Chairman Sam Johnson
(R-TX) and Workforce Protections Subcommittee Chairman Charlie
Norwood (R-GA), strongly supported the implementation of new
Labor Department regulations on union transparency. The new
rules give rank-and-file union members more detailed
information about the financial activities of their unions.
Legislation was also passed in the Employer-Employee Relations
Subcommittee to further support this goal.
Hearings in the Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee
during the 108th Congress revealed many labor unions fail to
notify their members of the democratic rights guaranteed to
them under the 1959 Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure
Act (LMRDA). Committee Republicans argued this failure
undermines accountability and leaves rank-and-file union
members in the dark about their rights. On October 2, 2003, the
EER Subcommittee passed three bills introduced by Subcommittee
Chairman Johnson to ensure rank-and-file workers receive
information on the rights guaranteed to them under the LMRDA.
The EER Subcommittee also held hearings to investigate what
many believe are increasing efforts by union bosses to
circumvent current worker protection laws by abusing the secret
ballot process. Circumventing the law in this manner, Committee
Republicans argued, undermines union democracy and the
democratic rights of individual union members. Norwood
introduced legislation, the Secret Ballot Protection Act (H.R.
4343), to address this concern. H.R. 4343 proposed guaranteeing
workers the right to a secret ballot election conducted by the
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on decisions of whether
to form a union and prohibiting employers from recognizing
unions based on a card check.
A more detailed account of the Education and the Workforce
Committee's efforts during the 108th Congress to strengthen
union democracy and improve accountability and transparency for
union members is included later in this report, in the summary
of actions by the Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee.
Promoting Efforts To Give ``Family Time'' Options to
Working Mothers and Fathers
Members of the Education and the Workforce Committee
conducted a major effort during the 108th Congress to modernize
outdated workforce laws that prevent working parents from
spending more time with their children and families.
Under current law, President Bush and Committee Republicans
noted, federal employees have the right to choose extra time
off with their families instead of receiving overtime pay for
extra work. This ``family time'' option, very popular with
federal employees, is denied to private sector workers across
America because it is illegal for employers to offer such
options under an outdated 1938 law that was not written with
the realities of the 21st Century workplace in mind,
Republicans noted.
The denial of ``family time'' rights to private sector
workers is a growing problem for American society, Republicans
noted, as working women and men leading increasingly busy lives
find it more and more difficult to balance family and work
responsibilities.
On April 9, 2003, the Education and the Workforce Committee
approved the Family Time Flexibility Act (H.R. 1119),
introduced by Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL). The proposal called for
allowing hourly private sector workers to choose paid time off
as compensation for working overtime hours instead of overtime
pay, giving them the same rights and choices government workers
have had for years.
A disinformation campaign launched by union bosses and
lobbying groups against the Biggert bill falsely asserted that
the bill would permit employers to force workers to accept time
off in lieu of overtime pay. Chairman John Boehner (R-OH)
condemned the disinformation effort in 2003, calling it a
``campaign of lies'' that was delaying the enactment of common-
sense labor law revisions at the expense of working parents.
A more detailed account of Education and the Workforce
Committee efforts during the 108th Congress to provide working
men and women with the option of spending more time with their
families is included later in this report, in the summary of
actions by the Workforce Protections Subcommittee.
Examining the Promise and Implications of Genetic Testing
The Education and the Workforce Committee devoted time in
2003 and 2004 to a detailed examination of current laws and
regulations, federal and state, that seek to promotegenetic
non-discrimination and individual privacy, and govern the potential use
of genetic information in employer-sponsored health plans.
A major hearing was conducted by the Employer-Employee
Relations Subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX),
which has jurisdiction on matters concerning employer-provided
health insurance and employment-related aspects of the genetic
non-discrimination issue. The Subcommittee examined efforts
being taken voluntarily by employers to ban genetic
discrimination, as well as the effectiveness of current laws.
Witnesses urged Congress to proceed cautiously before crafting
any new mandates.
While workers and employers agree employment decisions
should be based on the qualifications of employees, not on
genetic factors, questions remain, legislators noted. Because
hasty legislating can result in unintended consequences that
have serious implications for workers and employers, Committee
leaders said, the EER Subcommittee hearing was intended to
provide an overview of this extremely complex area of law and
science to ensure any future legislation enacted is precise and
measured in its impact.
A more detailed account of the Education and the Workforce
Committee's efforts to examine the promise and implications of
genetic testing is included later in this report, in the
summary of actions by the Employer-Employee Relations
Subcommittee.
Investigating Questionable Stock Transactions at ULLICO
Inc.
In 2002, during the 107th Congress, the Education and the
Workforce Committee subpoenaed executives of the Enron
Corporation to testify before Congress about the Enron collapse
and its implications for the retirement security of American
workers. This process gave way to legislation demanding greater
accountability from corporate insiders. Reflecting Education
and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Boehner's (R-OH)
belief that Congress should insist on the same type of
accountability from union leaders, the Committee in 2003
conducted an investigation into questionable stock transactions
at the union-owned life insurance company ULLICO Inc., looking
into the possibility that the scandal-plagued company had
violated federal labor and pension laws at the expense of rank-
and-file workers.
``Union members have a right to know that the union leaders
who manage labor pension funds are following the law and acting
in the interests of the workers they represent,'' Boehner said
of the process in 2003.
Based on witness testimony and more than 95,000 documents
the Committee reviewed during its inquiry, Committee leaders
determined serious questions existed about whether the
questionable transactions at ULLICO violated federal labor law
(the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act) and federal
pension law (the Employee Retirement Income Security Act).
Republicans noted these questions were not addressed in a
report prepared by former Illinois Gov. James Thompson, who was
appointed by ULLICO to do an independent investigation into the
ULLICO transactions, apparently because ULLICO officials had
instructed Thompson not to look into those areas.
Based on a review of these documents, the Committee held a
hearing on June 17, 2003, to examine whether the members of the
ULLICO board of directors who participated in alleged insider
stock deals acted in the best interest of their unions and
union members. At this hearing, key witnesses connected to
ULLICO did little to ease congressional concerns over the
possibility that the sweetheart stock deals at the union-
operated company were a potential violation of federal labor
and pension laws. During the hearing, former ULLICO Chairman
and CEO Robert Georgine refused to testify, instead invoking
his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination.
A more detailed summary of the efforts to examine the stock
transactions at ULLICO, Inc. is included later in this report
in the summary of actions by the Employer-Employee Relations
Subcommittee.
Enhancing Worker Safety & Fairness for Small Businesses
A key goal for the Education and the Workforce Committee in
its effort to update federal workplace laws has been promoting
worker safety and reducing illness and injury in the workplace.
During the 108th Congress, Committee leaders pursued a common-
sense revision of federal laws and policies relating to the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
OSHA regulations, Committee Republicans argued, are among
the most complex and difficult legal requirements imposed on
employers. For many employers, especially smaller ones,
compliance with OSHA regulations is a challenge even with help
from experts. OSHA under the Bush Administration has made
significant efforts to supplement traditional enforcement
programs with partnerships that promote cooperation in making
workplaces safer, Committee Republicans noted. A March 2004
Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found OSHA's
voluntary compliance programs have been effective in reducing
the number of workplace injuries and illnesses. Workplace
injuries and fatalities declined significantly during President
Bush's first term, dropping by approximately 11% during the
five year period reviewed by the federal government.
In order to build on these efforts, the House on May 18,
2004 passed four bills sponsored by Workforce Protections
Subcommittee Chairman Charlie Norwood (R-GA) designed to
improve workplace safety, enhance business competitiveness, and
foster more job creation to spur the economy. The measures
sought to ensure that OSHA enforcement efforts are fair for
small businesses that make good faith efforts to comply with
all health and safety laws. Committee leaders noted the
proposed reforms would bolster worker safety by making it
easier for employers to work voluntarily and proactively with
OSHA to ensure safe and secure workplaces.
A more detailed account of the Education and the Workforce
Committee's efforts to enhance worker safety during the 108th
Congress is included later in this report, in the summary of
actions by the Workforce Protections Subcommittee.
Supporting Efforts To Preserve Retiree Health Care Benefits
During the 108th Congress, members of the Education and the
Workforce Committee strongly supported common-sense proposals
to preserve health care benefits for retirees across the
country. On April 22, 2004, the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) voted to move forward with a common-sense
regulation, supported by Republicans, Democrats, employers,
workers, and organized labor, to ensure employers are not
forced to reduce or eliminate retiree health benefits for
millions of American seniors in order to avoid potential age
discrimination liability.
Supporters of the revision argued the updated rule was
needed because of a court ruling (Erie County Retirees
Association v. County of Erie) which had determined an employer
that voluntarily provides retiree health benefits is prohibited
from reducing those benefits once an individual becomes
eligible for Medicare. If this court decision were applied
broadly, supporters argued, it would result in almost all
employers reducing benefits provided to early retirees in order
to meet a nondiscrimination test that would require them to
provide the ``same'' benefits to early retirees and post-65
retirees.
The EEOC's proposed regulation is consistent with a letter
sent by several top Committee members in December 2003
expressing strong bipartisan support for the EEOC regulation.
The letter was signed by Committee Chairman John Boehner (R-
OH), Employer-Employee Relations (EER) Subcommittee Chairman
Sam Johnson (R-TX), and Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ), the EER
Subcommittee's ranking Democratic member.
Committee leaders criticized the lobbying organization AARP
for opposing the proposed revision. They noted AARP's stance,
if put into practice, would endanger the retiree health
benefits of millions of American seniors--the very Americans
AARP claims to exist to protect--by encouraging employers to
drop health benefits they currently provide voluntarily.
A more detailed account of the Education and the Workforce
Committee's efforts during the 108th Congress to preserve
retiree health care benefits is included later in this report,
in the summary of actions by the Employer-Employee Relations
Subcommittee.
Preserving Mental Health Parity Benefits Through ERISA
On September 23, 2004, led by members of the Education and
the Workforce Committee, the House voted to preserve current-
law mental health parity benefits for another year through
December 31, 2005. Mental health parity benefits offered
through the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA),
the federal law that governs employer-sponsored health care,
had been set to expire on December 31, 2004.
President Bush signed the extension measure into law on
October 4, 2004. Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee
Chairman Sam Johnson (R-TX) was a leader in the House effort to
extend these benefits. Current-law mental health parity
benefits, enacted in 1996, prevent employers and health
insurers from establishing annual and lifetime limits on health
insurance coverage for mental health benefits unless similar
limits were also established for medical and surgical health
coverage.
Promoting Worker Safety and Preserving Traditions in
Religious Communities
As part of the FY 2004 omnibus appropriations bill,
Congress enacted legislation supported by members of the
Education and the Workforce Committee that allows religious
communities to continue the traditional way of training their
children in a craft or occupation while ensuring the safety of
those who are employed in woodworking occupations. President
Bush signed the measure into law on January 23, 2004.
The new law is similar to a bill (H.R. 1943) introduced by
Rep. Joseph Pitts (R-PA) during the 108th Congress, which was
the subject of hearings held by the Workforce Protections
Subcommittee. Subcommittee Chairman Charlie Norwood (R-GA) was
a leader in efforts to pass the legislation. The new law
creates a common-sense exception to the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) that ensures religious communities can preserve
their long-established way of raising and training their
children.
A more detailed account of the Education and the Workforce
Committee's efforts during the 108th Congress to promote worker
safety and preserve traditions in religious communities is
included later in this report, in the summary of actions by the
Workforce Protections Subcommittee.
D. OVERSIGHT PLAN AND ACTIVITIES DURING THE 108TH CONGRESS
Pursuant to House Rule XI, Clause 1, the following
specifies the oversight plan activities and are discussed
within the body of this report. 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.
Accordingly, the Committee is responsible for overseeing
approximately 24,000 federal employees and more than $125
billion in annual spending. More importantly, The Education and
the Workforce Committee has a dual mission: empowering parents
and teachers to provide our students with the best education
possible and giving American workers access to the tools and
protections they need to meet the challenges and opportunities
of the New Economy.
General Oversight Responsibilities
According to House Rule X, Clause 2(a):
The various standing committees shall have general
oversight responsibilities as provided in paragraph (b) in
order to assist the House in--(1) its analysis, appraisal, and
evaluation of--
(A) the application, administration, execution, and
effectiveness of Federal laws; and
(B) conditions and circumstances that may indicate the
necessity or desirability of enacting new or additional
legislation; and
(2) its formulation, consideration, and enactment of
changes in Federal laws, and of such additional legislation as
may be necessary or appropriate.
(b)(1) In order to determine whether laws and programs
addressing subjects within the jurisdiction of a committee 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--
(A) the application, administration, execution, and
effectiveness of laws and programs addressing subjects within
its jurisdiction;
(B) 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.
Exercise of Oversight Responsibilities
The Committee takes seriously its responsibility to conduct
oversight and investigations. The Committee is therefore
committed to ensuring that government agencies, departments and
programs within in its jurisdiction:
Focus on an appropriate federal mission;
Work in an effective and efficient manner; and
Consistently follow Congressional intent in their
respective activities and operations.
Accordingly and in keeping with the Rules of the House and
the principles of oversight and investigations, the Committee
has identified 6 major projects for the 108th Congress. These
projects are:
Financial Management in the Department of Education: During
the final three years of the Clinton Administration, the
Department of Education failed three consecutive audits, and an
estimated $450 million was lost to waste, fraud, and
mismanagement. In October 2001, Secretary Paige announced a
comprehensive action plan for putting the Department's
management and financial house in order based on 601 separate
recommendations. Since then, Secretary Paige has addressed all
of the audit recommendations, restricted the use of government
purchase cards, and tightened control of the Department's
financial matters. In early February 2003, results from an
agency-wide audit of the Department of Education's financial
statements will be available to the Committee. This information
can be used to measure the progress that has been made by the
Bush Administration in implementing needed corrective actions.
Elementary and Secondary Education: Following the enactment
of the No Child Left Behind Act, in the 107th Congress, the
Committee has been and will continue to focus on the effective
and timely implementation of the Act. The Committee will
examine successful efforts to implement the law at the state
and local level, as well as the obstacles to successful
implementation at all levels, including how federal regulations
promote or inhibit timely and effective implementation.
Specific areas of focus will include accountability,
assessments, choice, supplemental services, teacher quality,
and flexibility.
Higher Education: The Committee will thoroughly examine the
laws and regulations governing the Higher Education Act (HEA),
with the goal of increasing access to postsecondary education
for our nation's students, ensuring the quality of the
education provided, requiring accountability on the part of the
institutions providing that education and working diligently to
examine the issue of skyrocketing costs within postsecondary
education. In addition, within the reauthorization of the HEA,
the Committee will work with Historically Black Colleges and
Universities as well as Hispanic-Serving Institutions to review
opportunities to strengthen and improve aid to these
institutions.
Department of Labor Issues: The Committee will continue its
oversight of the various programs and statutes administered by
the Department of Labor, including the administration of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act. The Committee also expects
to monitor and review the Department of Labor's regulatory
initiatives with respect to the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the improvements to
the union reporting requirements under title II of the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
Retirement Security: The Committee will continue to monitor
the Department of Labor's activities with respect to its
efforts to protect the integrity of private pension and welfare
plans. In addition, the Committee will continue its oversight
of the Pension Benefit and Guaranty Corporation.
In addition, the Committee reserves the right to review and
investigate general legislative, administrative and regulatory
issues affecting the jurisdiction of the Committee.
II. Hearings Held by the Committee
108th Congress, First Session
February 12, 2003--Hearing on ``Back to Work: the
Administration's Plan for Economic Recovery and the Workforce
Investment Act'' (108-1)
February 18, 2003--Field Hearing on ``H.R. 444, the Back to
Work Incentive Act'' in Las Vegas, Nevada (108-3)
May 1, 2003--Joint Hearing on ``Coordinating Human Services
Transportation'' with the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure (108-13)
May 13, 2003--Hearing on ``The State of American Higher
Education: What Are Parents, Students, and Taxpayers Getting
for Their Money'' (108-15)
June 17, 2003--Hearing on ``The ULLICO Scandal and its
Implications for U.S. Workers'' (108-19)
September 4, 2003--Hearing on ``Strengthening Pension
Security and Defined Benefit Plans: Examining the Financial
Health of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation'' (108-29)
October 7, 2003--Hearing on Improving the Quality and
Efficiency of Commodity Distribution to Federal Child Nutrition
Programs (108-36)
October 29, 2003--Hearing on ``The Pension Underfunding
Crisis: How Effective Have Reforms Been?'' (108-40)
108th Congress, Second Session
February 25, 2004--Hearing on ``Strengthening Pension
Security for All Americans: Are Workers Prepared for a Safe and
Secure Retirement?'' (108-44)
March 3, 2004--Hearing on ``No Child Left Behind: Improving
Results for Children with Disabilities'' (108-45)
March 8, 2004--Field Hearing on ``The Status of No Child
Left Behind Implementation in Ohio,'' in Columbus, Ohio (108-
46)
March 11, 2004--Hearing on The Changing Nature of the
Economy: The Critical Roles of Education and Innovation in
Creating Jobs & Opportunity in a Knowledge Economy (108-47)
March 17, 2004--Hearing on ``Fiscal Responsibility and
Federal Consolidation Loans: Examining Cost Implications for
Taxpayers, Students, and Borrowers'' (108-48)
April 15, 2004--Field Hearing on No Child Left Behind:
Improving Academic Achievement Through Flexibility and
Accountability for Schools, in Augusta, Georgia (108-50)
April 21, 2004--Hearing on The Importance of Highly
Qualified Teachers in Raising Academic Achievement (108-51)
April 28, 2004--Hearing on ``Assessing the Impact of the
Labor Department's Final Overtime Regulations on Workers and
Employers'' (108-54)
May 12, 2004--Hearing on H.R. 4283, the College Access &
Opportunity Act (108-58)
June 16, 2004--Hearing on ``H.R. 4283, the College Access &
Opportunity Act: Are Students at Proprietary Institutions
Treated Equitably Under Current Law?'' (108-63)
June 23, 2004--Hearing on ``No Child Left Behind: Raising
Student Achievement in America's Big City Schools'' (108-65)
July 7, 2004--Hearing on ``Examining Cash Balance Pension
Plans: Separating Myth from Fact'' (108-67)
July 13, 2004--Hearing on ``H.R. 4283, the College Access &
Opportunity Act: Increasing the Focus on Graduation Rates and
Student Outcomes'' (108-68)
III. Markups Held by the Committee
108th Congress, First Session
February 5, 2003--Organizational Meeting. Committee Rules
for the 108th Congress were adopted, as amended by voice vote.
The Oversight Plan was adopted by voice vote. Majority
Subcommittee Assignments along with Subcommittee Ranking
Minority Members were announced.
February 13, 2003--H.R. 13, Museum and Library Services Act
of 2003 was ordered favorably reported by voice vote. H.R. 14,
Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003 was ordered
favorably reported, as amended, by voice vote.
March 5, 2003--H.R. 444, Back to Work Incentive Act of 2003
was ordered favorably reported, as amended, by a vote of 23-22
with 1 Member voting Present.
March 5, 6, 2003--H.R. 1000, Pension Security Act of 2003
was ordered favorably reported, as amended, by a vote of 29-19.
March 26, 27, 2003--H.R. 1261, Workforce Reinvestment and
Adult Education Act of 2003 was ordered favorably reported, as
amended, by a vote of 26-21.
April 9, 2003--H.R. 1119, Family Time Flexibility Act was
ordered favorably reported by a vote of 27-22.
April 9, 10, 2003--H.R. 1350, Improving Education Results
for Children With Disabilities Act of 2003 was ordered
favorably reported, as amended, by a vote of 29-19.
May 15, 2003--H.R. 1925, Runaway, Homeless and Missing
Children Protection Act was ordered favorably reported, as
amended, by voice vote. H.R. 1170, Child Medication Safety Act
of 2003 was ordered favorably reported, as amended, by voice
vote.
June 10, 2003--H.R. 2211, Ready to Teach Act of 2003 was
ordered favorably reported, as amended, by voice vote. H.R.
438, Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act of 2003 was ordered
favorably reported, as amended, by voice vote.
June 11, 12, 2003--H.R. 660, Small Business Health Fairness
Act of 2003 was ordered favorably reported, as amended, by a
vote of 26-21.
June 18, 19, 2003--H.R. 2210, School Readiness Act of 2003
was ordered favorably reported, as amended, by a vote of 27-20.
September 25, 2003--H. Con. Res. 282, Honoring the life of
Johnny Cash was ordered favorably reported by unanimous
consent. H.R. 3076, Graduate Opportunities in Higher Education
Act of 2003 was ordered favorably reported, as amended, by
voice vote. H.R. 3077, International Studies in Higher
Education Act of 2003 was ordered favorably reported, as
amended, by voice vote.
October 1, 2003--H.R. 3030, Improving the Community
Services Block Grant Act of 2003 was ordered favorably
reported, as amended by a vote of 28-20.
108th Congress, Second Session
March 10, 2004--H.R. 3873, The Child Nutrition Improvement
and Integrity Act was ordered favorably reported, as amended by
a vote of 42-0.
May 5, 2004--H.R. 2728, Occupational Safety and Health
Small Business Day in Court Act of 2003 was ordered favorably
reported, as amended, by a vote of 24-20. H.R. 2729,
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Efficiency Act
of 2003 was ordered favorably reported, as amended, by a vote
of 24-20. H.R. 2730, Occupational Safety and Health Independent
Review of OSHA Citations Act of 2003 was ordered favorably
reported, as amended, by a vote of 24-20. H.R. 2731,
Occupational Safety and Health Small Employer Access to Justice
Act of 2003 was ordered favorably reported, as amended, by a
vote of 24-20.
May 19, 2004--H.R. 4278, Improving Access to Assistive
Technology for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004 was
ordered favorably reported, as amended, by voice vote.
July 21, 2004--H.R. 4496, Vocational and Technical
Education for the Future Act was ordered favorably reported, as
amended, by voice vote.
IV. Legislative Activities
A. LEGISLATION ENACTED INTO LAW (BILLS REFERRED TO COMMITTEE)
1. H.R. 13 (Public Law 108-81) To reauthorize the Museum
and Library Services Act, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep
Hoekstra, Peter
2. H.R. 14 To amend the Child Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act to make improvements to and reauthorize programs
under that Act, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Hoekstra,
Peter. H.R. 14se 108 was enacted in Public Law 108-36 (S. 342).
3. H.R. 421 (Public Law 108-160) To reauthorize the United
States Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, and for
other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Kolbe, Jim
4. H.R. 438, Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act of 2003.
Sponsor: Rep Wilson, Joe. Provisions of H.R. 438 were enacted
in Public Law 108-409 (H.R. 5186).
5. H.R. 464, IDEA Paperwork Reduction Act of 2003. Sponsor:
Rep Keller, Ric. Provisions of H.R. 464 were enacted in Public
Law 108-446 (H.R. 1350).
6. H.R. 490, Instructional Materials Accessibility Act of
2003. Sponsor: Rep Petri, Thomas E. Provisions of H.R. 490 were
enacted in Public Law 108-446 (H.R. 1350).
7. H.R. 1104, to prevent child abduction, and for other
purposes. Sponsor: Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. H.R. 1104
was enacted in Public Law 108-21 (S. 151).
8. H.R. 1170, Child Medication Safety Act of 2003. Sponsor:
Rep Burns, Max. Provisions of H.R. 1170 were enacted in Public
Law 108-446 (H.R. 1350).
9. H.R. 1350 (Public Law 108-446) Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. Sponsor: Rep
Castle, Michael N.
10. H.R. 1373, IDEA Parental Choice Act of 2003. Sponsor:
Rep DeMint, Jim. Provisions of H.R. 1373 were enacted in Public
Law 108-446 (H.R. 1350).
11. H.R. 1412 (Public Law 108-76) To provide the Secretary
of Education with specific waiver authority to respond to a war
or other military operation or national emergency. Sponsor: Rep
Kline, John
12. H.R. 1413, To provide benefits for certain individuals
with injuries resulting from administration of a smallpox
vaccine, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Burr, Richard.
H.R. 1413 was enacted in Public Law 108-20 (H.R. 1770).
13. H.R. 1463, To provide benefits for certain individuals
with injuries resulting from administration of a smallpox
vaccine, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Burr, Richard.
H.R. 1463 was enacted in Public Law 108-20 (H.R. 1770).
14. H.R. 1770 (Public Law 108-20) To provide benefits and
other compensation for certain individuals with injuries
resulting from administration of smallpox countermeasures, and
for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Burr, Richard
15. H.R. 1925 (Public Law 108-96) To reauthorize programs
under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act and the Missing
Children's Assistance Act, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep
Gingrey, Phil
16. H.R. 1943, To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 to permit certain youth to perform certain work with wood
products, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Pitts, Joseph R.
H.R. 1943 was enacted in P.L. 108-199 (H.R. 2673).
17. H.R. 2023 (Public Law 108-377) Asthmatic
Schoolchildren's Treatment and Health Management Act of 2004.
Sponsor: Rep Stearns, Cliff
18. H.R. 2359, To extend the basic pilot program for
employment eligibility verification, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Calvert, Ken. H.R. 2359 was enacted in Public Law
108-156 (S. 1685).
19. H.R. 2552, To improve the manner in which the
Corporation for National and Community Service approves, and
records obligations relating to, national service positions.
Sponsor: Rep Van Hollen, Chris. H.R. 2552 was enacted in Public
Law 108-45 (S. 1276).
20. H.R. 3108 (Public Law 108-218) To amend the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 to temporarily replace the 30-year Treasury rate
with a rate based on long-term corporate bonds for certain
pension plan funding requirements and other provisions, and for
other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Boehner, John A.
21. H.R. 3232 (Public Law 108-134) to reauthorize certain
school lunch and child nutrition programs through March 31,
2004. Sponsor: Rep Castle, Michael N.
22. H.R. 3504 (Public Law 108-267) To amend the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act to redesignate
the American Indian Education Foundation as the National Fund
for Excellence in American Indian Education. Sponsor: Rep
Renzi, Rick
23. H.R. 3797 (Public Law 108-386) 2004 District of
Columbia Omnibus Authorization Act.
24. H.R. 3908 (Public Law 108-305) To provide for the
conveyance of the real property located at 1081 West Main
Street in Ravenna, Ohio. Sponsor: Rep Ryan, Tim
25. H.R. 3521, Tax Relief Extension Act of 2003. Sponsor:
Rep Thomas, Bill, H.R 3521 (Title II, sec. 2001, Temporary
Replacement of 30-year Treasury Rate) was enacted in Public Law
108-218 (H.R. 3108).
26. H.R. 3966, ``ROTC and Military Recruiter Equal Access
to Campus Act of 2004.'' Provisions were enacted in sec. 552 of
Public Law 108-375 (H.R. 4200).
27. H.R. 4278 (Public Law 108-364) To amend the Assistive
Technology Act of 1998 to support programs of grants to States
to address the assistive technology needs of individuals with
disabilities, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep McKeon,
Howard P. (Buck)
28. H.R. 5131 (Public Law 108-406) Special Olympics Sport
and Empowerment Act of 2004 Sponsor: Rep Blunt, Roy
29. H.R. 5185 (Public Law 108-366) Higher Education
Extension Act of 2004. Sponsor: Rep Boehner, John A.
30. H.R. 5186 (Public Law 108-409) Taxpayer-Teacher
Protection Act of 2004. Sponsor: Rep Boehner, John A.
31. H.R. 5360 (Public Law 108-474) American History and
Civics Education Act of 2004 Sponsor: Rep Wicker, Roger F.
32. H.R. 5365 (Public Law 108-476).To treat certain
arrangements maintained by the YMCA Retirement Fund as church
plans for the purposes of certain provisions of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep
English, Phil
33. S. 163, A bill to reauthorize the United States
Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, and for other
purposes. Sponsor: Sen McCain, John. S. 163 was enacted in
Public Law 108-160 (H.R. 421).
34. S. 570 (Public Law 108-98) A bill to amend the Higher
Education Act of 1965 with respect to the qualifications of
foreign schools. Sponsor: Sen Ensign, John E.
35. S. 870 (Public Law 108-30) A bill to amend the Richard
B. Russell National School Lunch Act to extend the availability
of funds to carry out the fruit and vegetable pilot program.
Sponsor: Sen Harkin, Tom
36. S. 1814 (Public Law 108-341) A bill to transfer federal
lands between the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of
the Interior. Sponsor: Sen Bond, Christopher S.
B. LEGISLATION ENACTED INTO LAW (BILLS NOT REFERRED TO COMMITTEE)
1. H.J. Res. 63 (Public Law 108-188) A joint resolution to
approve the Compact of Free Association, as amended, between
the Government of the United States of America and the
Government of the Federated States of Micronesia, and the
Compact of Free Association, as amended, between the Government
of the United States of America and the Government of the
Republic of the Marshall Islands, and to appropriate funds to
carry out the amended Compacts.'' Sponsor: Rep Leach, James A.
Contains a provision on Supplemental Education Grants (Title I,
sec. 105).
2. H.R. 1 (Public Law 108-173) An act to amend title XVIII
of the Social Security Act to provide for a voluntary
prescription drug benefit under the medicare program and to
strengthen and improve the medicare program, and for other
purposes. Sponsor: Rep Hastert, J. Dennis. Contains provisions
for a study on employment-based retiree health coverage Title I
(sec. 111); and a provision regarding the establishment of a
Citizens' Health Care Working Group (Title X sec. 1014).
3. H.R. 1308 (Public Law 108-311) An act to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax relief for working
families, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Thomas, William
M. Contains a provision to extend mental health parity for one
year (sec. 302).
4. H.R. 1588 (Public Law 108-136) To authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2004 for military activities of
the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for
defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe
personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces,
and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Hunter, Duncan. Contains
provisions in Title II, Subtitle D--Other Matters (sec. 233);
Title V--Military Personnel Policy (sections, 536, 537, 543,
563); Title VII--Health Care Provisions (sec. 701); Title
VIII--Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management and Related
Matters (sec. 852); and Title IX--Department of Defense
Organization and Management (sections, 925, 926, and 932).
5. H.R. 2350 (Public Law 108-40) To reauthorize the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant program
through fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep
Herger, Wally. Contains provisions to extend programs under the
committee's jurisdiction.
6. H.R. 2673, (Public Law 108-199) Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2004. Incorporates H.R. 1943, To amend the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to permit certain youth to
perform certain work with wood products, and for other purposes
(Division E, Title I).
7. H.R. 3146 (Public Law 108-89 ) To extend the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families block grant program, and certain
tax and trade programs, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep
Thomas, William M. Contains provisions to extend programs under
the committee's jurisdiction.
8. H.R. 4200 (Public Law 108-375) To authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for military activities of
the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for
defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe
personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces,
and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Hunter, Duncan. Contains
provisions in Title V, Military Personnel Policy (sections 524,
552, 558, 559, 560); Title VIII--Acquisition Policy,
Acquisition Management, and Related Matters (sec. 853); Title
X--General Provisions (sec. 1087); Title XXVIII--General
Provisions (sec. 2896); and Title XXXI, Subtitle E--Energy
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program (sections
3161-3170).
9. H.R. 4520 (Public Law 108-357) To amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to remove impediments in such Code and
make our manufacturing, service, and high-technology businesses
and workers more competitive and productive both at home and
abroad. Sponsor: Rep Thomas, William M. Contains a provision
regarding modification of minimum cost requirement for transfer
of excess pension assets (sec. 709).
10. H.R. 4548 (Public Law 108-487) To authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for intelligence and
intelligence-related activities of the United States
Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central
Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for
other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Goss, Porter J. Contains
provisions in Title VI including: Subtitle A--National Security
Education Program (sec. 601-603); and Subtitle B--Improvement
in Intelligence Community Foreign Language Skills (sec. 611-
615).
11. H.R. 4589 (Public Law 108-262) To reauthorize the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant program
through September 30, 2004, and for other purposes. Sponsor:
Rep Herger, Wally. Contains provisions to extend programs under
the committee's jurisdiction.
12. H.R. 5149 (Public Law No: 108-308) To reauthorize the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant program
through March 31, 2005, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep
Herger, Wally. Contains provisions to extend programs under the
committee's jurisdiction.
13. S. 151/H.R. 1104 (Public Law 108-21 ) An Act to prevent
child abduction and the sexual exploitation of children, and
for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Hatch, Orrin G.
14. S. 286 (Public Law 108-154) Birth Defects and
Developmental Disabilities Prevention Act of 2003. Sponsor: Sen
Bond, Christopher S. Contains provisions under the committee's
jurisdiction regarding the Family Educational Rights and
Privacy Act.
15. S. 342/H.R. 14 (Public Law 108-36) A bill to amend the
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act to make improvements
to and reauthorize programs under that Act, and for other
purposes. Sponsor: Sen Gregg, Judd
16. S. 1276/H.R. 2552 (Public Law 108-45) A bill to improve
the manner in which the Corporation for National and Community
Service approves, and records obligations relating to, national
service positions. Sponsor: Sen Bond, Christopher S.
17. S. 1685/H.R. 2359 (Public Law 108-156) A bill to extend
and expand the basic pilot program for employment eligibility
verification, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Grassley,
Charles E.
18. S. 1929 (Public Law 108-197) A bill to amend the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Public
Health Service Act to extend the mental health benefits parity
provisions for an additional year. Sponsor: Sen Gregg, Judd
19. S. 2231 (Public Law 108-210) A bill to reauthorize the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant program
through June 30, 2004, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen
Grassley, Charles E. Contains provisions to extend programs
under the committee jurisdiction.
20. S. 2241 (Public Law 108-211) A bill to reauthorize
certain school lunch and child nutrition programs through June
30, 2004. Sponsor: Sen Cochran, Thad
21. S. 2507/H.R. 3873 (Public Law 108-265) An original bill
to amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and
the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to provide children with
increased access to food and nutrition assistance, to simplify
program operations and improve program management, to
reauthorize child nutrition programs, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Cochran, Thad
22. S. 2845/H.R. 10 (Public Law 108-458) A bill to reform
the intelligence community and the intelligence and
intelligence-related activities of the United States
Government, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Collins, Susan
M. Contains provisions in Title I, Subtitle D--Improvement of
Education for the Intelligence Community (sections 1041-1043);
Title VI, Subtitle E--Criminal History Background Checks
(sections 6401-6403); and Title VII, Subtitle A--Diplomacy,
Foreign Aid, and the Military in the War on Terrorism (sec.
7113).
C. LEGISLATION PASSED THE HOUSE (BILLS REFERRED TO COMMITTEE)
1. H. Con. Res. 13, Recognizing the importance of blues
music, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Ford, Harold E.,
Jr.
2. H. Con. Res. 62, Expressing the sense of Congress that
Katherine Dunham should be recognized for her groundbreaking
achievements in dance, theater, music, and education, as well
as for her work as an activist striving for racial equality
throughout the world. Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B.
3. H. Con. Res. 63, Expressing the sense of Congress that
Lionel Hampton should be honored for his contributions to
American music. Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B.
4. H. Con. Res. 94, Expressing the sense of the Congress
that community inclusion and enhanced lives for individuals
with mental retardation or other developmental disabilitiesis
at serious risk because of the crisis in recruiting and retaining
direct support professionals, which impedes the availability of a
stable, quality direct support workforce. Sponsor: Rep Sessions, Pete
5. H. Con. Res. 131, Expressing the sense of the Congress
that student travel is a vital component of the educational
process. Sponsor: Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes
6. H. Con. Res. 142, Congratulating the Syracuse University
men's basketball team for winning the 2003 NCAA Division I
men's basketball national championship. Sponsor: Rep Walsh,
James T.
7. H. Con. Res. 144, Expressing the sense of Congress that
Dinah Washington should be recognized for her achievements as
one of the most talented vocalists in American popular music
history. Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B.
8. H. Con. Res. 282, Honoring the life of Johnny Cash.
Sponsor: Rep Cooper, Jim
9. H. Con. Res. 355, Congratulating the University of
Delaware men's football team for winning the National
Collegiate Athletic Association I-AA national championship.
Sponsor: Rep Castle, Michael N.
10. H. Con. Res. 373, Expressing the sense of Congress that
Kids Love a Mystery is a program that promotes literacy and
should be encouraged. Sponsor: Rep Miller, George
11. H. Con. Res. 380, Recognizing the benefits and
importance of school-based music education. Sponsor: Rep
Cooper, Jim
12. H. Con. Res. 408, Congratulating the University of
Denver men's hockey team for winning the 2004 NCAA men's hockey
national championship, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep
DeGette, Diana
13. H. Con. Res. 413, Honoring the contributions of the
women, symbolized by ``Rosie the Riveter'', who served on the
homefront during World War II, and for other purposes. Sponsor:
Rep Capito, Shelley Moore
14. H. Con. Res. 449, Honoring the life and accomplishments
of Ray Charles, recognizing his contributions to the Nation,
and extending condolences to his family on his death. Sponsor:
Rep Burns, Max
15. H. Con. Res. 501, Honoring the life and work of Duke
Ellington, recognizing the 30th anniversary of the Duke
Ellington School of the Arts, and supporting the annual Duke
Ellington Jazz Festival. Sponsor: Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes
16. H. Res. 10, Congratulating the Ohio State University
football team for winning the 2002 NCAA Division I-A collegiate
football national championship. Sponsor: Rep Pryce, Deborah
17. H. Res. 13, Congratulating the Grand Valley State
University Lakers for winning the 2002 NCAA Division II
Football National Championship. Sponsor: Rep Hoekstra, Peter
18. H. Res. 17, Honoring the Hilltoppers of Western
Kentucky University from Bowling Green, Kentucky, for winning
the 2002 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I-AA
football championship. Sponsor: Rep Lewis, Ron
19. H. Res. 25, Supporting efforts to promote greater
awareness of the need for youth mentors and increased
involvement with youth through mentoring. Sponsor: Rep Osborne,
Tom
20. H. Res. 26, Honoring the contributions of Catholic
schools. Sponsor: Rep Vitter, David
21. H. Res. 41, Congratulating the University of Portland
women's soccer team for winning the 2002 NCAA Division I
national championship. Sponsor: Rep Blumenauer, Earl
22. H. Res. 66, Supporting responsible fatherhood and
encouraging greater involvement of fathers in the lives of
their children, especially on Father's Day. Sponsor: Rep
Sullivan, John
23. H. Res. 106, Congratulating Lutheran schools, students,
parents, teachers, administrators, and congregations across the
Nation for their ongoing contributions to education, and for
other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Bereuter, Doug
24. H. Res. 107, Commending and supporting the efforts of
Students in Free Enterprise (SIFE), the world's preeminent
collegiate free enterprise organization. Sponsor: Rep Boozman,
John
25. H. Res. 113, Recognizing the social problem of child
abuse and neglect, and supporting efforts to enhance public
awareness of the problem. Sponsor: Rep Hayworth, J. D.
26. H. Res. 161, Recognizing the achievements of Operation
Respect and the ``Don't laugh At Me'' programs. Sponsor: Rep
Miller, George
27. H. Res. 171, Commending the University of Minnesota
Duluth Bulldogs for winning the NCAA 2003 National Collegiate
Women's Ice Hockey Championship. Sponsor: Rep Oberstar, James
L.
28. H. Res. 186, Recognizing the 100th anniversary of the
founding of the Laborers' International Union of North America
and congratulating the members and officers of the Laborers'
International Union of North America for the Union's many
achievements. Sponsor: Rep Miller, George
29. H. Res. 187, Congratulating the University of
Connecticut Huskies for winning the 2003 National Collegiate
Athletic Association Division I women's basketball
championship. Sponsor: Rep Simmons, Rob
30. H. Res. 204, Congratulating charter schools across the
United States, and the students, parents, teachers, and
administrators of such schools, for their ongoing contributions
to education, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Porter, Jon
C.
31. H. Res. 217, Commending the University of Minnesota
Golden Gophers for winning the 2003 National Collegiate
Athletic Association Division I Men's Ice Hockey Championship.
Sponsor: Rep Sabo, Martin Olav
32. H. Res. 266, Commending the Clemson University Tigers
men's golf team for winning the 2003 National Collegiate
Athletic Association Division I Men's Golf Championship.
Sponsor: Rep Barrett, J. Gresham
33. H. Res. 300, Recognizing the outstanding contributions
of the faculty, staff, students, and alumni of Christian
colleges and universities. Sponsor: Rep Hoekstra, Peter
34. H. Res. 378, Recognizing the more than 200 independent
colleges and universities that together have addressed the need
to help families pay for the increasing cost of attending
college by creating the first nationwide prepaid tuition plan.
Sponsor: Rep Granger, Kay
35. H. Res. 379, Honoring the Rice University Owls baseball
team for winning the NCAA baseball championship. Sponsor: Rep
Bell, Chris
36. H. Res. 391, Congratulating the University of Illinois
Fighting Illini men's tennis team for its successful season.
Sponsor: Rep Johnson, Timothy V.
37. H. Res. 411, Expressing the sense of the House that
John Wooden should be honored for his contributions to sports
and education. Sponsor: Rep Lewis, Jerry
38. H. Res. 438, Congratulating John Gagliardi, football
coach of St. John's University, on the occasion of his becoming
the all-time winningest coach in collegiate football history.
Sponsor: Rep Kennedy, Mark R.
39. H. Res. 491, Honoring individuals who are mentors and
supporting efforts to recruit more mentors. Sponsor: Rep
Osborne, Tom
40. H. Res. 492, Honoring the contributions of Catholic
schools. Sponsor: Rep Vitter, David
41. H. Res. 493, Congratulating the St. John's University,
Collegeville, Minnesota, football team on winning the 2003 NCAA
Division III Football National Championship. Sponsor: Rep
Kennedy, Mark R.
42. H. Res. 496, Commending the Louisiana State University
Tigers football team for winning the 2003 Bowl Championship
Series national championship game, and commending the Southern
University Jaguars football team for winning the 2003 SBN Black
College National Football Championship. Sponsor: Rep Baker,
Richard H.
43. H. Res. 497, Commending the Wake Forest University
Demon Deacons field hockey team for winning the 2003 National
Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Field Hockey
Championship. Sponsor: Rep Burr, Richard
44. H. Res. 498, Congratulating the Grand Valley State
University Lakers football team for winning the 2003 National
Collegiate Athletic Association Division II Football National
Championship. Sponsor: Rep Hoekstra, Peter
45. H. Res. 511, Recognizing the accomplishments of the
University of Southern California's football, women's
volleyball, and men's water polo teams. Sponsor: Rep Watson,
Diane E.
46. H. Res. 594, Congratulating the Kennesaw State
University Owls for winning the 2004 NCAA Division II Men's
Basketball National Championship, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Isakson, Johnny
47. H. Res. 598, Recognizing the valuable contributions of
military impacted schools, teachers, administration, and staff
for their ongoing contributions to the education of military
children. Sponsor: Rep Hayes, Robin
48. H. Res. 599, Congratulating the University of
Connecticut Huskies for winning the 2004 National Collegiate
Athletic Association Division I men and women's basketball
championships. Sponsor: Rep Simmons, Rob
49. H. Res. 600, Congratulating charter schools and their
students, parents, teachers, and administrators across the
United States for their ongoing contributions to education, and
for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Porter, Jon C.
50. H. Res. 605, Recognizing the importance of increasing
awareness of autism, supporting programs for increased research
and improved treatment of autism, improving training and
support for individuals with autism and those who care for
individuals with autism, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep
Tierney, John F.
51. H. Res. 630, Commending the University of Minnesota
Golden Gophers for winning the 2003-2004 National Collegiate
Athletic Association Division I National Collegiate Women's Ice
Hockey Championship. Sponsor: Rep Sabo, Martin Olav
52. H. Res. 634, Congratulating the Kenyon College Ladies
swimming and diving team for winning the 2004 National
Collegiate Athletic Association Division III Women's Swimming
and Diving National Championship. Sponsor: Rep Ney, Robert W.
53. H. Res. 635, Congratulating the Kenyon College Lords
swimming and diving team for winning the 2004 National
Collegiate Athletic Association Division III Men's Swimming and
Diving National Championship. Sponsor: Rep Ney, Robert W.
54. H. Res. 643, Congratulating the Brigham Young
University men's volleyball team for winning the 2004 National
Collegiate Athletic Association Division I-II men's volleyball
championship. Sponsor: Rep Cannon, Chris
55. H. Res. 676, Recognizing and honoring the 40th
anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of
1964. Sponsor: Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes
56. H. Res. 704, Congratulating the California State
University, Fullerton Titans baseball team for winning the 2004
National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I College
World Series. Sponsor: Rep Royce, Edward R.
57. H. Res. 714, Honoring Sandra Feldman on the occasion of
her retirement from the presidency of the American Federation
of Teachers for her tireless efforts to improve the quality of
teaching and learning. Sponsor: Rep Miller, George
58. H. Res. 759, Commending the Festival of Children
Foundation for its outstanding efforts on behalf of children.
Sponsor: Rep Rohrabacher, Dana
59. H. Res. 778, Commemorating the 100th anniversary of the
birth of William ``Count'' Basie and acknowledging his
important contributions to jazz and swing music. Sponsor: Rep
Pallone, Frank, Jr.
60. H. Res. 792, Honoring the United Negro College Fund on
the occasion of the Fund's 60th anniversary and the Fund's
unflagging dedication to enhancing top quality college
opportunities to millions of students. Sponsor: Rep Miller,
George
61. H. Res. 805, Supporting efforts to promote greater
public awareness of effective runaway youth prevention programs
and the need for safe and productive alternatives, resources,
and supports for youth in high-risk situations. Sponsor: Rep
Porter, Jon C.
62. H. Res. 809, Supporting the goals and ideals of
``Lights On Afterschool, a national celebration of after-school
programs. Sponsor: Rep Kildee, Dale E.
63. H.R. 4, To reauthorize and improve the program of block
grants to States for temporary assistance for needy families,
improve access to quality child care, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Pryce, Deborah.
64. H.R. 6, To enhance energy conservation and research and
development, to provide for security and diversity in the
energy supply for the American people, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Tauzin, W. J. (Billy)
65. H.R. 7, To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
provide incentives for charitable contributions by individuals
and businesses, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Blunt, Roy
66. H.R 10, To provide for reform of the intelligence
community, terrorism prevention and prosecution, border
security, and international cooperation and coordination, and
for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Hastert, J. Dennis
67. H.R. 13, To reauthorize the Museum and Library Services
Act, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Hoekstra, Peter
68. H.R. 14, To amend the Child Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act to make improvements to and reauthorize programs
under that Act, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Hoekstra,
Peter
69. H.R. 421, Environmental Policy and Conflict Resolution
Advancement Act of 2003. Sponsor: Rep Kolbe, Jim
70. H.R. 438, To increase the amount of student loans that
may be forgiven for teachers in mathematics, science, and
special education. Sponsor: Rep Wilson, Joe
71. H.R. 444, To amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998
to establish a Personal Reemployment Accounts grant program to
assist Americans in returning to work; to reauthorize title II
of the Higher Education Act of 1965; to amend title VII of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 to ensure graduate opportunities
in postsecondary education. Sponsor: Rep Porter, Jon C
72. H.R. 620, To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
provide supplemental funding and other services that are
necessary to assist the State of California or local
educational agencies in California in providing educational
services for students attending schools located within the
Park. Sponsor: Rep Radanovich, George P.
73. H.R. 660, To amend title I of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 to improve access and choice for
entrepreneurs with small businesses with respect to medical
care for their employees. Sponsor: Rep Fletcher, Ernie
74. H.R. 1000, To amend title I of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 and the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide additional protections to participants and
beneficiaries in individual account plans from excessive
investment in employer securities and to promote the provision
of retirement investment advice to workers managing their
retirement income assets. Sponsor: Rep Boehner, John A.
75. H.R. 1104, To prevent child abduction, and for other
purposes. Sponsor: Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr.
76. H.R. 1170, To protect children and their parents from
being coerced into administering a controlled substance in
order to attend school, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep
Burns, Max
77. H.R. 1261, To enhance the workforce investment system
of the Nation by strengthening one-stop career centers,
providing for more effective governance arrangements, promoting
access to a more comprehensive array of employment, training,
and related services, establishing a targeted approach to
serving youth, and improving performance accountability, and
for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep McKeon, Howard P. (Buck)
78. H.R. 1350, To reauthorize the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, and for other purposes. Sponsor:
Rep Castle, Michael N.
79. H.R. 1412, To provide the Secretary of Education with
specific waiver authority to respond to a war or other military
operation or national emergency. Sponsor: Rep Kline, John
80. H.R. 1770, To provide benefits and other compensation
for certain individuals with injuries resulting from
administration of smallpox countermeasures, and for other
purposes. Sponsor: Rep Burr, Richard
81. H.R. 1925, To reauthorize programs under the Runaway
and Homeless Youth Act and the Missing Children's Assistance
Act, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Gingrey, Phil
82. H.R. 2023, To give a preference regarding States that
require schools to allow students to self-administer medication
to treat that student's asthma or anaphylaxis, and for other
purposes. Sponsor: Rep Stearns, Cliff.
83. H.R. 2210, To reauthorize the Head Start Act to improve
the school readiness of disadvantaged children, and for other
purposes. Sponsor: Rep Castle, Michael N.
84. H.R. 2211, To reauthorize title II of the Higher
Education Act of 1965. Sponsor: Rep Gingrey, Phil
85. H.R. 2728, Occupational Safety and Health Small
Business Day in Court Act of 2003. Sponsor: Rep Norwood,
Charlie
86. H.R. 2729, To amend the Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 to provide for greater efficiency at the
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Sponsor: Rep
Norwood, Charlie
87. H.R. 2730, To amend the Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 to provide for an independent review of citations
issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Sponsor: Rep Norwood, Charlie
88. H.R. 2731, To amend the Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 to provide for the award of attorney's fees and
costs to very small employers when they prevail in litigation
prompted by the issuance of citations by the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration. Sponsor: Rep Norwood, Charlie
89. H.R. 3030, To amend the Community Service Block Grant
Act to provide for quality improvements. Sponsor: Rep. Osborne,
Tom
90. H.R. 3076, To amend title VII of the Higher Education
Act of 1965 to ensure graduate opportunities in postsecondary
education, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Hoekstra, Peter
91. H.R. 3077, To amend title VI of the Higher Education
Act of 1965 to enhance international education programs.
Sponsor: Rep Hoekstra, Peter
92. H.R. 3108, To amend the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
temporarily replace the 30-year Treasury rate with a rate based
on long-term corporate bonds for certain pension plan funding
requirements and other provisions, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Boehner, John A.
93. H.R. 3232, To reauthorize certain school lunch and
child nutrition programs through March 31, 2004. Sponsor: Rep
Castle, Michael N.
94. H.R. 3504, To amend the Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 to provide for the award of attorney's fees and
costs to very small employers when they prevail in litigation
prompted by the issuance of citations by the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration. Sponsor: Rep Norwood, Charlie
95. H.R. 3521, To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Thomas, William M.
96. H.R. 3550, To authorize funds for Federal-aid highways,
highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other
purposes. Sponsor: Rep Young, Don
97. H.R. 3797, To authorize funds for Federal-aid highways,
highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other
purposes. Sponsor: Rep Young, Don
98. H.R. 3873, To amend the Richard B. Russell National
School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to provide
children with access to food and nutrition assistance, to
simplify program operations, to improve children's nutritional
health, and to restore the integrity of child nutrition
programs, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Castle, Michael
N.
99. H.R. 3908, To provide for the conveyance of the real
property located at 1081 West Main Street in Ravenna, Ohio.
Sponsor: Rep Ryan, Tim
100. H.R. 3966, To amend title 10, United States Code, to
improve the ability of the Department of Defense to establish
and maintain Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps units at
institutions of higher education, to improve the ability of
students to participate in Senior ROTC programs, and to ensure
that institutions of higher education provide military
recruiters entry to campuses and access to students that is at
least equal in quality and scope to that provided to any other
employer. Sponsor: Rep Rogers, Mike D.
101. H.R. 4278, To amend the Assistive Technology Act of
1998 to support programs of grants to States to address the
assistive technology needs of individuals with disabilities,
and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep McKeon, Howard P. (Buck)
102. H.R. 4281, To amend title I of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 to improve access and choice for
entrepreneurs with small businesses with respect to medical
care for their employees. Sponsor: Rep Johnson, Sam
103. H.R. 4409, To reauthorize title II of the Higher
Education Act of 1965. Sponsor: Rep Gingrey, Phil
104. H.R. 4411, To amend title VII of the Higher Education
Act of 1965 to ensure graduate opportunities in postsecondary
education, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Burns, Max
105. H.R. 4503, To enhance energy conservation and research
and development, to provide for security and diversity in the
energy supply for the American people, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Barton, Joe
106. H.R. 5131, To provide assistance to Special Olympics
to support expansion of Special Olympics and development of
education programs and a Healthy Athletes Program, and for
other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Blunt, Roy
107. H.R. 5185, To temporarily extend the programs under
the Higher Education Act of 1965. Sponsor: Rep Boehner, John A.
108. H.R. 5186, To temporarily extend the programs under
the Higher Education Act of 1965. Sponsor: Rep Boehner, John A.
109. H.R. 5360, To authorize grants to establish academies
for teachers and students of American history and civics, and
for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Wicker, Roger F.
110. H.R. 5365, To treat certain arrangements maintained by
the YMCA Retirement Fund as church plans for the purposes of
certain provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and
for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep English, Phil
111. S. 570, A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of
1965 with respect to the qualifications of foreign schools.
Sponsor: Sen. Ensign, John E.
112. S. 870, A bill to amend the Richard B. Russell
National School Lunch Act to extend the availability of funds
to carry out the fruit and vegetable pilot program. Sponsor:
Sen. Harkin, Tom
113. S. 1814, to temporarily extend the programs under the
Higher Education Act of 1965. Sponsor: Rep Boehner, John A.
D. LEGISLATION PASSED THE HOUSE IN ANOTHER MEASURE
1. H.R. 14, Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003
(CAPTA) passed the House in S. 342, Keeping Children and
Families Safe Act of 2003 (CAPTA).
2. H.R. 423, To increase the amount of student loans that
may be forgiven for teachers in mathematics, science, and
special education. Provisions passed the House in H.R. 5186, To
reduce certain special allowance payments and provide
additional teacher loan forgiveness on Federal student loans.
3. H.R. 464, IDEA Paperwork Reduction Act of 2003.
Provisions included in H.R. 1350, Improving Education Results
for Children with Disabilities Act of 2003.
4. H.R. 660, Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2003
passed the House in H.R. 4281, Small Business Health Fairness
Act of 2004 and subsequently in H.R. 4279, Small Business
Health Fairness Act of 2004.
5. H.R. 1104, Child Abduction Prevention Act, passed the
House in S. 151, Child Abduction Prevention Act.
6. H.R. 1170, Child Medication Safety Act of 2003.
Provisions passed the House in H.R. 1350, Improving Education
Results for Children with Disabilities Act of 2003.
7. H.R. 1373, IDEA Parental Choice Act of 2003. Provisions
included in H.R. 1350, Improving Education Results for Children
with Disabilities Act of 2003.
8. H.R. 1412, Higher Education Relief Opportunities for
Students Act of 2003 (HEROES), passed the House in H.R. 1588,
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Title
XV).
9. H.R. 1413, Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act
of 2003, passed the House in H.R. 1770, Smallpox Emergency
Personnel Protection Act of 2003.
10. H.R. 1463, Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act
of 2003, passed the House in H.R. 1770, Smallpox Emergency
Personnel Protection Act of 2003.
11. H.R. 2211, Ready to Teach Act of 2003 passed the House
in H.R. 4409, Teacher Training Enhancement Act and subsequently
in H.R. 444.
12. H.R. 2359, Basic Pilot Extension Act of 2003.
Provisions included in a similar bill S. 1685, Basic Pilot
Program Extension and Expansion Act of 2003.
13. H.R. 2552, To improve the manner in which the
Corporation for National and Community Service approves, and
records obligations relating to, national service positions,
passed the House in S. 1276, A bill to improve the manner in
which the Corporation for National and Community Service
approves, and records obligations relating to, national service
positions.
14. The following bills passed the House in H.R. 2728, To
amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to provide
for adjudicative flexibility with regard to an employer filing
of a notice of contest following the issuance of a citation by
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration; to provide
for greater efficiency at the Occupational Safety and Health
Review Commission; to provide for an independent review of
citations issued by the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration; to provide for the award of attorney's fees and
costs to very small employers when they prevail in litigation
prompted by the issuance of citations by the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration; and to amend the Paperwork
Reduction Act and titles 5 and 31, United States Code, to
reform Federal paperwork and regulatory processes:
H.R. 2729, Occupational Safety and Health Review
Commission Efficiency Act of 2004 (Title II)
H.R. 2730, Occupational Safety and Health
Independent Review of OSHA Citations Act of 2004 (Title III)
H.R. 2731, Occupational Safety and Health Small
Employer Access to Justice Act of 2004 (Title IV)
H.R. 3076, Graduate Opportunities in Higher
Education Act of 2003 passed House in H.R. 4411, Priorities for
Graduate Studies Act of 2004 and then subsequently in H.R. 444.
15. Provisions of the following bills passed the House in
H.R. 3873, Child Nutrition Improvement and Integrity Act:
H.R. 2227, Obesity Prevention Act (section 302)
H.R. 2592, Healthy America Act (sections 303, 307
and 404)
H.R. 2626, Farm-To-Cafeteria Projects Act of 2003
(section 302)
H.R. 2832, Healthy Nutrition for America's
Children Act (section 307)
H.R. 3120, Right to Know School Nutrition Act
(section 502)
H.R. 3232, To reauthorize certain school lunch and
child nutrition programs for fiscal year 2004 (sections 101,
104, 105, and 504)
H.R. 3250, Child Nutrition Improvement Act of 2003
(section 304)
H.R. 3416, Healthy Children Through Better
Nutrition Act of 2003
H.R. 3869, Pride in the Lunch Line Act of 2004
(section 501)
16. H.R. 4281, Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2004
passed the House in H.R. 4279, Small Business Health Fairness
Act of 2004.
17. The following bills passed the House in H.R. 444, To
amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to establish a
Personal Reemployment Accounts grant program to assist
Americans in returning to work; to reauthorize title II of the
Higher Education Act of 1965; to amend title VII of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 to ensure graduate opportunities in
postsecondary education:
H.R. 4444, Worker Reemployment Accounts Act of
2004 (Title I)
H.R. 4409, Teacher Training Enhancement Act (Title
II)
H.R. 4411, Priorities for Graduate Studies Act of
2004 (Title III)
H.R. 3521, Tax Relief Extension Act of 2003 (Title
II, sec. 2001) passed the House in H.R. 3108, Pension Funding
Equity Act of 2004.
18. H. Res. 158, To express the support and commitment of
the U.S. House of Representatives for the troops serving to
protect and defend the United States of America by encouraging
actions to extend and protect their student financial aid for
postsecondary education. Provisions incorporated into H.R.
1412, Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of
2003 (HEROES).
19. H. Res. 158, To express the support and commitment of
the U.S. House of Representatives for the troops serving to
protect and defend the United States of America by encouraging
actions to extend and protect their student financial aid for
postsecondary education. Provisions incorporated into H.R.
1588, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004
(Title XV).
20. S. 163, Environmental Policy and Conflict Resolution
Advancement Act of 2003. Provisions included in a similar bill
H.R. 421, Environmental Policy and Conflict Resolution
Advancement Act of 2003.
E. LEGISLATION PASSED THE HOUSE (BILLS NOT REFERRED TO COMMITTEE)
1. H. Res. 80, Providing amounts for the expenses of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce in the One Hundred
Eighth Congress. (Committee funding resolution for the 108th
congress, passed the House in H. Res. 148).
2. H. Res. 146, Providing amounts for the expenses of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce in the One Hundred
Eighth Congress. (Incorporates the committee funding resolution
for the 108th Congress).
3. H. Res. 148, Providing for the expenses of certain
committees of the House of Representatives in the One Hundred
Eighth Congress. (Incorporates the committee funding resolution
for the 108th Congress).
4. H. Con. Res. 95, Establishing the congressional budget
for the United States Government for fiscal year 2004 and
setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2003 and 2005 through 2013.
5. H. Con. Res. 524, Directing the Clerk of the House of
Representatives to make certain corrections to the enrollment
of H.R. 1350.
6. S. Con. Res. 95, An original concurrent resolution
setting forth the congressional budget for the United States
Government for fiscal year 2005 and including the appropriate
budgetary levels for fiscal years 2006 through 2009.
7. H. J. Res. 63, Compact of Free Association Amendments
Act of 2003. Contains a provision regarding supplemental
education grants (sec. 105(g)(1)(b)).
8. H.R. 1558, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2004. Contains provisions on standardization of statutory
authorities for exemptions from requirements for access to
secondary schools by military recruiters (sec. 544);
eligibility for dependents of certain mobilized reservists
stationed overseas to attend defense dependents schools
overseas (sec. 553); assistance to local educational agencies
that benefit dependents of members of Armed Forces and
Department of Defense civilian employees (sec. 563); impact-aid
eligibility for heavily impacted local educational agencies
affected by privatization of military housing (sec. 567);
repeal of rotating chairmanship of Economic Adjustment
Committee (sec. 907); authority to provide living quarters for
certain students in cooperative and summer education programs
of the National Security Agency (sec. 1046); Short Title (sec.
1501); waiver authority for response to military contingencies
and national emergencies (sec. 1502); use of professional
judgment (sec. 1504); definitions (sec. 1505); and termination
of authority (sec. 1506).
9. H.R. 2350, To reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families block grant program through fiscal year 2003,
and for other purposes. Contains provisions to extend programs
under the committee's jurisdiction.
10. H.R. 3146, To extend the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families block grant program, and certain tax and trade
programs, and for other purposes. Contains provisions to extend
programs under the committee's jurisdiction.
11. H.R. 4200, National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2005. Contains provisions in Title V--Military
Personnel Policy--on continuation of impact assistance on
behalf of dependents of certain members despite change in state
of member (sec. 590); assistance to local education agencies
that benefit dependents of members of the Armed Forces and
Department of Defense civilian employees (sec. 595); senior
reserve officer training corps and recruiter access at
institutions of higher education (sec. 596); Title IX--
Department of Defense Organization and Management--modification
of obligated service requirements under National Security
Education Program (sec. 904); and Title XXXI--Department of
Energy National Security Programs--improvements to the Energy
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program (sec.
3135).
12. H.R. 4279, Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely
Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2004. Incorporates H.R. 660, ``Small
Business Health Fairness Act of 2003'' and H.R. 4281, ``Small
Business Health Fairness Act of 2004'' in Title II.
13. H.R. 4548, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2005. Contain provisions on increasing employee
compensation and benefits authorized by law (Title III sec.
301); provisions for annual funding (Title VI--Education, sec.
601); modification of obligated service requirements under the
National Security Education Program (sec. 602); improvements to
the National Flagship Language Initiative (sec. 603);
establishment of scholarship program for English language
studies for heritage community citizens of the United States
within the National Security Energy Program (sec. 604);
provisions in Subtitle B--Improvement in Intelligence Community
Foreign Language Skills--Assistant Director of Central
Intelligence for Language and Education (sec. 611); requirement
for foreign language proficiency for advancement to certain
senior level positions in the intelligence community (sec.
612); advancement of foreign languages critical to the
intelligence community (sec. 613).
14. H.R. 4589, TANF and Related Programs Continuation Act
of 2004. Contains provisions to extend programs under the
committee's jurisdiction.
15. H.R. 5149, Welfare Reform Extension Act, Part VIII.
Contains provisions to extend programs under the committee's
jurisdiction.
16. S. 151/H.R. 1104, Child Abduction Prevention Act.
17. S. 286, Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities
Prevention Act of 2003. Contains provisions under the
committee's jurisdiction regarding the Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act.
18. S. 342/H.R. 14, Keeping Children and Families Safe Act
of 2003.
19. S. 1276/H.R. 2552, Strengthen AmeriCorps Program Act.
20. S. 1685/H.R. 2359, Basic Pilot Program Extension and
Expansion Act of 2003.
21. S. 1929, A bill to amend the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 and the Public Health Service Act to
extend the mental health benefits parity provisions for an
additional year.
22. S. 2231, A bill to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families block grant program through June 30, 2004,
and for other purposes. Contains provisions to extend programs
under the committee's jurisdiction.
23. S. 2241, A bill to reauthorize certain school lunch and
child nutrition programs through June 30, 2004.
24. S. 2507/H.R. 3873, Child Nutrition and WIC
Reauthorization Act of 2004.
25. S. 2845/H.R. 10, National Intelligence Reform Act of
2004. Contains provisions in Title I, Subtitle E--Improvement
of Education for the Intelligence Community, on modification of
obligated service requirements under National Security
Education Program (sec. 1051); improvements to the National
Flagship Language Initiative (sec. 1052); establishment of
scholarship program for English language studies for heritage
community citizens of the United States within the National
Security Education Program (sec. 1053); Sense of Congress with
respect to language and education for the intelligence
community (sec. 1054); advancement of foreign languages
critical to the intelligence community (sec. 1055); pilot
project for Civilian Linguist Reserve Corps (sec. 1056);
codification of establishment of the National Virtual
Translation Center (sec. 1057); report on recruitment and
retention of qualified instructors of the Defense Language
Institute (sec. 1058); Provisions in Title II, Subtitle F--
Criminal History Background Checks. Short title (sec. 2141);
criminal history background checks (sec.2142); Protect Act
(sec. 2143); reviews of criminal records of applicants for
private security officer employment (sec. 2144); task force on
clearinghouse for IAFIS criminal history records (sec. 2145);
and clarification of purpose (sec. 2146).
F. LEGISLATION WITH FILED COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. H.R. 13, Museum and Library Services Act of 2003 (House
Report 108-16)
2. H.R. 14, Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003
(House Report 108-26)
3. H.R. 444, Back to Work Incentive Act of 2003 (House
Report 108-35)
4. H.R. 1000, Pension Security Act of 2003 (House Report
108-43, Part 1)
5. H.R. 1350, Improving Education Results for Children with
Disabilities Act of 2003 (House Report 108-77)
6. H.R. 1261, Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education
Act of 2003 (House Report 108-82)
7. H.R. 1925, Runaway, Homeless, and Missing Children
Protection Act (House Report 108-118)
8. H.R. 1170, Child Medication Safety Act of 2003 (House
Report 108-121)
9. H.R. 1119, Family Time Flexibility Act (House Report
108-127)
10. H.R. 660, Small Business Fairness Act of 2003 (House
Report 108-156)
11. H.R. 438, Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act of 2003
(House Report 108-182)
12. H.R. 2211, Ready to Teach Act of 2003 (House Report
108-183)
13. H.R. 2210, School Readiness Act of 2003 (House Report
108-184)
14. H.R. 3076, Graduate Opportunities in Higher Education
Act of 2003 (House Report 108-307)
15. H.R. 3077, International Studies in Higher Education
Act of 2003 (House Report 108-308)
16. H.R. 3030, Improving the Community Services Block Grant
Act of 2003 (House Report 108-310)
17. H.R. 3873, The Child Nutrition Improvement and
Integrity Act (House Report 108-445)
18. H.R. 2728, Occupational Safety and Health Small
Business Day in Court Act (House Report 108-487)
19. H.R. 2729, Occupational Safety and Health Review
Commission Efficiency Act of 2004 (House Report 108-486)
20. H.R. 2730, Occupational Safety and Health Independent
Review of OSHA Citations Act of 2004 (House Report 108-488,
Part 1)
21. H.R. 2731, Occupational Safety and Health Small
Employer Access to Justice Act (House Report 108-489, Part 1)
22. H.R. 4278, Improving Access to Assistive Technology for
Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004 (House Report 108-
514)
23. H.R. 4496, Vocational and Technical Education for the
Future Act (House Report 108-659)
24. Report on the Activities of the Committee on Education
and the Workforce for the 108th Congress (108-813)
G. LEGISLATION ORDERED REPORTED FROM FULL COMMITTEE
108th Congress, First Session
H.R. 14, Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003 was
ordered favorably reported, as amended, by voice vote.
H.R. 13, Museum and Library Services Act of 2003 was
ordered favorably reported by voice vote.
H.R. 444, Back to Work Incentive Act of 2003 was ordered
favorably reported, as amended, by a vote of 23-22 with 1
Member voting Present.
H.R. 1000, Pension Security Act of 2003 was ordered
favorably reported, as amended, by a vote of 29-19.
H.R. 1261, Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act
of 2003 was ordered favorably reported, as amended, by a vote
of 26-21.
H.R. 1119, Family Time Flexibility Act was ordered
favorably reported by a vote of 27-22.
H.R. 1350, Improving Education Results for Children With
Disabilities Act of 2003 was ordered favorably reported, as
amended, by a vote of 29-19.
H.R. 1170, Child Medication Safety Act of 2003 was ordered
favorably reported, as amended, by voice vote.
H.R. 1925, Runaway, Homeless and Missing Children
Protection Act was ordered favorably reported, as amended, by
voice vote.
H.R. 438, Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act of 2003 was
ordered favorably reported, as amended, by voice vote.
H.R. 2211, Ready to Teach Act of 2003 was ordered favorably
reported, as amended, by voice vote.
H.R. 660, Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2003 was
ordered favorably reported, as amended, by a vote of 26-21.
H.R. 2210, School Readiness Act of 2003 was ordered
favorably reported, as amended, by a vote of 27-20.
H. Con. Res. 282, Honoring the life of Johnny Cash was
ordered favorably reported by unanimous consent.
H.R. 3076, Graduate Opportunities in Higher Education Act
of 2003 was ordered favorably reported, as amended, by voice
vote.
H.R. 3077, International Studies in Higher Education Act of
2003 was ordered favorably reported, as amended, by voice vote.
H.R. 3030, Improving the Community Services Block Grant Act
of 2003 was ordered favorably reported, as amended by a vote of
28-20.
108th Congress, Second Session
H.R. 3873, Child Nutrition Improvement and Integrity Act
was ordered favorably reported, as amended by a vote 42-0.
H.R. 2728, Occupational Safety and Health Small Business
Day in Court Act of 2003 was ordered favorably reported, as
amended, by a vote of 24-20.
H.R. 2729, Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
Efficiency Act of 2003 was ordered favorably reported, as
amended, by a vote of 24-20.
H.R. 2730, Occupational Safety and Health Independent
Review of OSHA Citations Act of 2003 was ordered favorably
reported, as amended, by a vote of 24-20.
H.R. 2731, Occupational Safety and Health Small Employer
Access to Justice Act of 2003 was ordered favorably reported,
as amended, by a vote of 24-20.
H.R. 4278, Improving Access to Assistive Technology for
Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004 was ordered favorably
reported, as amended, by voice vote.
H.R. 4496, Vocational and Technical Education for the
Future Act was ordered favorably reported, as amended, by voice
vote.
H. CONFERENCE REPORTS FILED WITH EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE MEMBERS
APPOINTED AS CONFEREES
1. S. 151/H.R. 1104,* Prosecuting Remedies and Tools
Against the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 PROTECT
Act (House Report 108-21)
2. S. 342/H.R. 14,* Keeping Children and Families Safe Act
of 2003 (House Report 108-150)
3. H.R. 1588, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2004 (House Report 108-354)
4. H.R. 6,* Energy Policy Act of 2003 (House Report 108-
375)
5. H.R. 3108,* Pension Funding Equity Act of 2004 (House
Report 108-457)
6. H.R. 4200, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2005 (House Report 108-767)
7. H.R. 4520, American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (House
Report 108-755)
8. H.R. 1350,* Individuals with Disabilities Education
Improvement Act of 2004 (House Report 108-779)
*bills referred to committee
I. CONFERENCES WITH EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE MEMBERS APPOINTED AS
CONFEREES
S. 151/H.R. 1104*--Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools
To End the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 or
PROTECT Act (appointed 3/31/03)
S. 342/H.R. 14*--Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of
2003 (appointed 4/7/03)
H.R. 1588--National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2004 (appointed 7/16/03)
H.R. 6*--Energy Policy Act of 2003 (appointed 9/5/03)
H.R. 3108*--Pension Funding Equity Act of 2003 (Chairman
Boehner, Conference Chair) (appointed 3/4/04)
March 9, 2004--House-Senate Conference Meeting
April 1, 2004--House-Senate Conference Meeting
H.R. 3550*--To authorize funds for Federal-aid highways,
highway safety programs, and transit programs (appointed 6/3/
04)
H.R. 1261*--Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act
of 2003 (appointed 6/3/04) (pending senate conferee
appointment)
H.R. 4200--National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2005 (appointed 9/28/04)
H.R. 4520--American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (appointed 9/
29/04)
H.R. 1350*--Individuals with Disabilities Education
Improvement Act of 2004 (appointed 10/8/04)
(* bills referred to committee)
V. Committee on Education and the Workforce Statistics
A. GENERAL STATISTICS ON REFERRED MATTERS
Total Number of Bills and Resolution Referred..................... 658
Total Number of Hearings Held..................................... 74
Total Number of Hearings Held by the Full Committee........... 21
Total Number of Field Hearings Held............................... 9
Total Number of Field Hearings Held by the Full Committee..... 3
Total Number of Joint Hearings Held with Other Committees......... 2
Total Number of Full Committee Joint Hearings Held with Other
Committees.................................................. 1
Total Number of Markup Sessions Held.............................. 34
Total Number of Full Committee Markup Sessions Held........... 20
Total Number of Bills Ordered Reported by the Full Committee...... 24
Total Number of Filed Reports..................................... 32
Total Number of Committee Reports............................. 24
Total Number of Filed Conference Reports...................... 8
Report on the Activities of the Committee for the 108th
Congress.................................................... 1
Total Number of Conferences with E&W Members Appointed Conferees.. 10
Total Number of Issued Reports (ULLICO)........................... 1
Total Number of Issued Subpoenas.................................. 2
Total Number of Bills and Resolutions Passed the House............ 113
Total Number of Bills Passed the House in Another Measure......... 34
Total Number of Bills Enacted Into Law............................ 36
B. NOT REFERRED MATTERS CONTAINING COMMITTEE'S JURISDICTION
Total Number of Not Referred Bills that Passed the House.......... 25
Total Number of Not Referred Bills Enacted Into Law............... 22
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS
I. Summary of Activities
Members of the House Education and the Workforce Employer-
Employee Relations (EER) Subcommittee, led by Chairman Sam
Johnson (R-TX), worked successfully with President George W.
Bush during the 108th Congress to modernize outdated federal
pension and labor laws to help working families meet the
challenges and opportunities of the modern economy.
Pension reform and worker retirement security were key
issues for the EER Subcommittee during the 108th Congress
because of the continuing decline of the defined benefit
pension system--a decline Committee Republicans argue is
putting current and future retiree pension benefits at risk--
and also because of ongoing fallout from the 2002 corporate
collapses at employers such as Enron and WorldCom.
The EER panel also placed a considerable emphasis during
the 108th Congress on expanding health care access for working
families, protecting health benefits for workers and retirees,
and strengthening union democracy and accountability.
Additionally, the Subcommittee used the hearing process to
examine the promise and implications of genetic testing
relative to federal workforce law.
The following is a summary of some of the major actions
taken by the Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee during
the 108th Congress.
PROTECTING WORKER PENSIONS AND ENHANCING RETIREMENT SECURITY
Pension reform emerged as a key issue for Congress during
President George W. Bush's first term--in part because of the
decline of the defined benefit pension system, but also because
of the 2002 corporate collapses of two major U.S. corporations,
Enron and WorldCom. The Education and the Workforce Committee,
led by members of the Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee,
had responded quickly and decisively to the emerging problems
during the 107th Congress by holding hearings and passing
relevant legislation to address these issues. Those efforts
were built upon by the Subcommittee in the 108th Congress, as
lawmakers broadened their focus with an eye on a comprehensive
overhaul of the nation's outdated pension and retirement
security laws.
In 2003, the Committee launched a series of bipartisan
hearings to examine the significant underfunding problems in
the defined benefit pension system. These hearings yielded a
considerable volume of information and testimony that Chairman
John Boehner (R-OH), EER Subcommittee Chairman Sam Johnson (R-
TX) and other Committee leaders intend to use as the foundation
for a future overhaul of pension and retirement security laws
in the 109th Congress. Among the topics addressed through this
hearing process were the question of whether Americans are
adequately prepared for retirement; the health of the overall
defined benefit system; the financial condition of the Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC); the effectiveness of
pension funding reforms enacted over the previous two decades;
possible reforms to the single and multiemployer pension
systems; and the status of cash balance pension plans. The
Committee, led by members of the EER Subcommittee, held eight
hearings on the defined benefit pension problems during the
108th Congress.
Helping Workers Adequately Prepare for Retirement
At a February 25, 2004 hearing before the Education and the
Workforce Committee, witnesses told Committee members that
workers aren't adequately planning for their retirement and
that reforming and strengthening the defined benefit pension
system should be a top priority to help ensure that workers
have a safe and secure retirement. While workers now have a
heightened responsibility to set retirement goals and save
sufficient funds for retirement, witnesses warned, many are not
prepared to make these difficult decisions, and as a result,
their retirement security may be in jeopardy.
Noted economist, author, and actor Ben Stein, honorary
chairperson of the National Retirement Planning Coalition, was
among those who testified before the Committee in support of
reforming the nation's pension laws.
``Tens of millions of Americans are seriously under-
prepared to meet their financial needs in retirement,'' Stein
told the Committee. ``These men and women expect and want to
have a decent, comfortable retirement, at least roughly similar
to the way of life they have before retirement. Yet the amount
that the ordinary, average American family has saved for
retirement is less than $50,000--a startlingly large fraction
of pre-retirees, perhaps as much as 40 percent, have almost nil
savings for retirement.''
``In other words, there is a very large gap between what
Americans have in the way of income for retirement and what
they are going to need to retire,'' Stein said. ``As a result,
millions of Americans will fall short of accumulating the
assets necessary to maintain the standard of living they have
grown accustomed to when they retire. For many, this will
require that they retire later than planned, try to find some
form of employment in retirement to generate additional income
or dramatically scale back their retirement lifestyles. None of
these is desirable.''
``Studies continually show that many retirees and baby
boomers now realize that they have not saved enough money to
retire or have only a short time to accumulate more money for
retirement,'' said Chairman Boehner at the time of the hearing.
``Reforming and strengthening the defined benefit pension
system, which traditionally provides a lifetime stream of
income or retirement insurance, is essential in preventing
retiree poverty and helping solve the problem of retirees
outliving their assets.''
Examining the Financial Condition of the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation
Committee leaders spent considerable time during the 108th
Congress warning that the defined benefit pension system is in
the midst of a significant decline. Committee leaders also
noted that the agency that insures defined benefit pension
plans on behalf of workers, the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation (PBGC), had accumulated a staggering deficit of
$23.3 billion, as of November 2004. This combination of
alarming trends presents a major challenge to the security of
American workers and taxpayers alike, Committee Republicans
warned.
On September 4, 2003, witnesses from both the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) and the PBGC testified before the
Education and the Workforce Committee on the financial
condition of the agency. Congressional Republicans, concerned
that the PBGC's troubles could potentially result in a
multibillion dollar federal bailout financed by taxpayers,
called the hearing in July 2003 after GAO announced it was
including the PBGC on its list of ``high-risk'' programs that
require additional federal oversight. In its July 23, 2003
announcement, GAO noted structural problems in the defined
benefit pension system that is jeopardizing the financial
health of the PBGC.
``My greatest fear is not the record deficits we're hearing
about today,'' Subcommittee Chairman Johnson said at the time
of the hearing. ``My greatest fear is not what we know; it's
what we don't know about looming liabilities of plans on the
brink. What will we hear about next and how will we pay for it?
We need to have a full and honest accounting for just how much
help PBGC will need and how we can fix it.''
U.S. Comptroller General David Walker, head of the GAO,
presented the agency's findings, saying ``the long-term
viability of the program is at risk.''
Walker cited two factors as the basis for this observation.
``First, and most worrisome, the high level of losses
experienced in 2002, due to the bankruptcy of companies with
large underfunded defined-benefit plans, could continue or
accelerate,'' Walker noted. ``Second, PBGC might not receive
sufficient revenue from premium payments and its own investment
to offset the losses experienced to date or those that may
occur in subsequent years.''
Steve Kandarian, testifying as executive director of the
PBGC, told the Committee the agency's record deficit had been
``caused by the failure of a significant number of highly
underfunded plans of financially troubled and bankrupt
companies,'' and noted PBGC premiums had ``not kept pace with
the growth in pension claims or in pension underfunding.''
Witnesses Warn Loss of Cash Balance Plans Would Jeopardize the Future
of the Defined Benefit System
On July 15, 2004, witnesses before the Committee expressed
concern about the future of the defined benefit pension system
if the legal uncertainty surrounding cash balance plans, which
are defined benefit plans, is not resolved in a responsible
manner. The witnesses warned the loss of cash balance plans as
a viable retirement plan option would undermine the retirement
security of working men and women.
Citing a recent survey indicating 41 percent of hybrid plan
sponsors would likely freeze their worker pension plans if the
legal uncertainty was not resolved within a year, witness James
Delaplane, special counsel for the American Benefits Council,
stressed the need for change.
``The hostile climate for hybrid plans and the litigation
risks and extreme damage potential are unfortunately starting
to make this an easier and easier decision for corporate
decision-makers'' to ``consider freezes or terminations,''
Delaplane warned.
``If employers are pushed to abandon hybrid plans, we will
lose a retirement vehicle that delivers higher benefits to the
vast majority of employees and meets workers' key retirement
plan needs--for portability and benefit guarantees--all while
utilizing transition methods that protect older workers,''
Delaplane added. ``How, exactly, is this good for employees and
their families?''
Ellen Collier, director of benefits for the Eaton
Corporation in Cincinnati, Ohio, described her company's
experience in implementing a cash balance plan for its workers.
``Like the majority of other employers who switch to a cash
balance design, Eaton made every effort to act in `good faith'
during this conversion,'' Collier told members. ``As opposed to
adopting a less costly, less secure, and less controversial
defined contribution design, Eaton incurred additional cost
through the conversion process, provided a variety of
communications materials and tools, and used a fair conversion
method.''
Eaton voluntarily made higher pay credits to the cash
balance accounts of older workers and those with longer service
to ease the transition, Collier said.
``The employee reaction to Eaton's decision to implement a
cash balance plan and provide an informed choice was
overwhelmingly positive,'' added Collier. ``This, along with
similar data from numerous surveys, indicates that employees
understand and appreciate the need for companies to have
flexible retirement programs that fit the needs of today's
workforce.''
Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA),
witnesses noted, benefits earned under a traditional plan
cannot be reduced when they are converted to a cash balance
plan. Delaplane told Committee members that ``despite
assertions to the contrary, existing benefits are never reduced
in a hybrid plan conversion.''
Collier reiterated that the legal uncertainty around cash
balance plans leaves employers with few options.
``One choice would be to stay with the traditional pension
design, which tends to deliver meaningful benefits to a
relatively small number of career-long workers, has limited
value as a recruitment device in today's marketplace, and makes
integration of new employees difficult,'' Collier said. ``The
other alternative would be to exit the defined benefit system
and provide only a defined contribution plan, which while an
important and popular benefit offering, provides none of the
security guarantees inherent in defined benefit plans. Clearly,
it is employees that lose out as a result of today's
uncertainty surrounding hybrid plans.''
Noted researcher Robert Clark, a professor at North
Carolina State University who had evaluated numerous pension
studies, also addressed Committee members.
``Comprehensive analysis of the impact of plan conversions
indicates that most workers will have higher lifetime pension
benefits in a world of cash balance plans compared to
traditional defined benefit plans,'' Clark reported, noting
``studies have shown that many senior workers also will gain
from a transition to a cash balance.''
``The advantages of the hybrid plan are not reserved for
younger workers,'' Delaplane added. ``Even longer-service
workers often fare better under a hybrid plan. One of the many
ways in which hybrid plan sponsors address the needs of longer-
service and older employees is by contributing pay credits that
increase with the age and service of employees. Recent surveys
show that 74 percent of cash balance plan sponsors provide pay
credits that increase with age or service, while 87 percent of
pension equity plan sponsors do the same.''
Because women tend to change jobs more often than men, are
more likely to leave the job market to handle family
responsibilities, and often do not stay at a job long enough to
be vested in a traditional plan, cash balance plans provide a
more equitable and generous pension benefit for women, stressed
Nancy Pfotenhauer, president of the Independent Women's Forum
(IWF).
``We believe the emergence of hybrid plans is encouraging
news for many and a cause for particular hope among women,''
said Pfotenhauer. ``In fact, one benchmark study done in 1998
by the Society of Actuaries found that an amazing 77 percent of
women do better under a cash balance approach. They are better
off under a cash balance system because they move in and out of
the workforce in order to balance family needs and because they
cannot afford to take early retirement.''
``An alternative perspective, and one that IWF believes has
credence, is that any adoption of restrictions that effectively
limit the ability of companies to transition to hybrid plans
places the financial well-being of the relatively few employees
who have had the luxury of staying with one company for a long
period of time, have the luxury of taking early retirement, and
have the luxury of taking their pension benefit in the form of
an annuity rather than as a lump sum, ahead of all of the
employees who do not have these options,'' Pfotenhauer said.
Several witnesses, including Delaplane and Collier, made
recommendations for Congress to move forward on the pension
reform effort, saying it was important to (1) clarify that the
cash balance and pension equity designs satisfy current age
discrimination rules; (2) provide legal certainty for the
hybrid plan conversions that have already taken place; (3)
establish rules to govern future conversions to hybrid plans;
and (4) reject benefit mandates that prevent employers from
modifying benefit programs or force employers to leave the
defined benefit system altogether.
Short-Term Pension Fix Highlights Need for Permanent Solutions
Members of the Education and the Workforce Committee worked
during the 108th Congress to help worker pension plans stay
afloat in the short-term as the groundwork was being laid for
broad, long-term reforms to strengthen the defined benefit
pension system.
Under the Committee's leadership, the 108th Congress
protected workers' retirement savings by enacting short-term
pension reforms, including a temporary replacement for the 30-
year Treasury bond interest rate used by many employers to
determine pension fund contributions and PBGC variable rate
premiums. Full Committee Chairman Boehner chaired the House-
Senate conference that produced the final short-term pension
bill. EER Subcommittee Chairman Johnson, 21st Century
Competitiveness Subcommittee Chairman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
(R-CA), and Rep. Pat Tiberi (R-OH) also played important roles
in ensuring the measure became law.
The House passed the conference agreement on April 2, 2004,
by a vote of 336-69. The Senate passed it on April 8, 2004, by
a bipartisan vote of 78-19. President Bush signed the measure
into law on April 10, 2004, five days before the crucial April
15 deadline for quarterly employer pension contributions.
``Enactment of this critical pension bill represents a
major victory for working families who count on defined benefit
pension plans for their retirement,'' said McKeon, a member of
the House-Senate conference. ``This two-year pension funding
fix will help millions of pension plans stay afloat and give
American workers security in their retirement savings while
Congress considers more permanent solutions to strengthen the
defined benefit system.''
``The conferees worked in a bipartisan, bicameral effort to
come to a final agreement providing temporary relief for
underfunded pension plans that put earned benefits of American
workers at risk,'' said Tiberi, also a member of the House-
Senate conference. ``It represents a responsible, short-term
approach, but it does not diminish the need for permanent,
long-term solutions to these pension issues.''
A summary of the pension conference agreement enacted in
2004:
Pension Interest Rate Fix. The conference report replaced
the current standard that employers must use to determine their
pension liabilities--the 30-year Treasury bond interest rate--
with a blended corporate bond rate for two years through
December 31, 2005. By resolving this key interest rate issue,
Congress helped to preserve employee pension plans in the
short-term as it looked at long-term solutions to reform and
strengthen the defined benefit system on behalf of workers and
employers.
Relief from Deficit Reduction Contributions (DRC). The
conference agreement included significant provisions dealing
with Deficit Reduction Contributions, or DRC payments, which
are the additional contributions companies must make to their
pension plans when plan funding falls below 90 percent of
liabilities. The conference agreement provided DRC relief for
airlines and steel companies, reducing these contributions by
80 percent, for two years only. The conference report dropped
provisions in the Senate bill that gave waivers for similar DRC
relief for all other single employer pension plans.
Multiemployer Plan Relief. The conference agreement allowed
multiemployer plans to defer the amortization of 80 percent of
the plan's 2002 net experience losses for two years in order to
target funding relief only to those multiemployer plans most in
need--those plans that experienced significant losses as a
result of low interest rates, sizable market investment losses,
and an expanding number of retirees. Plans qualified if they
met the following thresholds: (1) the plan had a net investment
loss of 10 percent or more for 2002; (2) the plan's actuary
certifies that the plans is expected to have a funding
deficiency in 2004, 2005, or 2006. The certification must be
based on the same actuarial assumptions used in the 2003 plan
year; (3) the plan had not failed to timely pay any excise tax
imposed by the IRS; (4) the plan had not had a funding holiday
for contributions in excess of 10 cents per hour; and (5) the
plan had not previously received any funding waivers from the
IRS.
The conference agreement specified that multiemployer plans
could not increase benefits during the deferral period, unless
the benefit increase was already negotiated under an existing
collective bargaining agreement or if contributions to the plan
exceeded the annual charges attributable to the benefit change.
The plan's actuary was required to certify that contributions
to the plan did in fact exceed the charges to the plan. The
conference agreement dropped Senate-passed language providing a
three-year deferral of amortized losses to all multiemployer
plans.
Finally, the conference report included Senate-passed
notice provisions requiring multiemployer plans to provide
participating employers and workers annual, written notice
about the funded status of their pension plan, and a general
description of the guaranteed benefits provided by the PBGC.
The conference report also requires the notice to be sent to
the PBGC.
Long-Term Defined Benefit Reforms Will Help Prepare Workers for a
Secure Retirement
As members worked on short-term reform legislation, the
Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee remained hard at work
looking at a variety of comprehensive reform options to
strengthen the defined benefit pension system and enhance the
retirement security of working families. On April 29, 2004,
witnesses before the Subcommittee presented different reform
possibilities for both the single and multiemployer pension
system for members to consider in their efforts craft a
comprehensive bill to bolster the long-term prospects of the
defined benefit system.
``Over the last 20 years, Congress has attempted several
times to strengthen the defined benefit system yet we are
seeing record deficits at the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation and underfunding problems continue to threaten the
future of this system,'' Subcommittee Chairman Johnson said.
``Fundamental questions of long-term pension plan solvency are
at the top of the list for reform. Expanding the number of
pension plans and individuals in these plans will be important
for ensuring Americans' retirement will be financially
secure.''
Witnesses before the Subcommittee provided members with a
variety of reform options for both the single employer and
multiemployer pension systems. Areas of reform discussed
included making permanent changes to the interest rate
companies use to calculate their pension liabilities, reforming
pension funding rules, strengthening the funding of
multiemployer plans, enhancing disclosure for participants, and
other areas as well.
As 2004 went on, Republican warnings about the consequences
of failing to update the nation's pension laws were further
validated as financial troubles forced some of the nation's
largest airlines to consider terminating or freezing their
worker pension plans, threatening American taxpayers with the
prospect of a multibillion dollar bailout. At the heart of the
potential crisis, Republicans noted, were outdated federal laws
that govern defined benefit pension plans, which sometimes make
it difficult to ensure worker retirement plans are adequately
funded. Chairman John Boehner and other Committee leaders
called for these laws to be updated to protect workers and
taxpayers.
On September 14, 2004, Chairman Boehner publicly outlined
six principles to guide congressional efforts to protect worker
retirement security and modernize America's pension laws.
Boehner emphasized the need for bipartisan cooperation, and
asked Committee Democrats to comment on the principles. The
principles included:
Congress should implement a permanent interest rate to
accurately calculate employers' pension funding promises.
Employers who are making major, short-term
financial decisions need greater certainty about the level of
their future pension obligations and workers need to know that
employers are making timely contributions to adequately fund
their pension plans.
Implementing a permanent and appropriate interest
rate is crucial to ensure that our pension system works for
both employers and workers.
We must ensure that pension calculations are
accurate and that all factors--including lump sum
distributions--are taken into account when determining the
funded status of a plan.
Congress should require companies to fully fund their
plans.
Outdated federal rules essentially force employers
to make additional pension contributions during difficult
economic times when they can least afford them, even while
limiting their ability to better fund their plans during
healthier economic times.
This is wrong; it's important for Congress to
encourage employers to make additional contributions to their
plans during strong economic times to ensure that plans are
adequately funded during an economic downturn or market
fluctuation.
Congress should reduce funding volatility in pension plans
to ensure that employers make adequate and consistent payments
to their plans.
Under current law, employers are allowed to skip
pension payments during times of economic prosperity if they
meet minimum funding standards.
Comprehensive reforms must require employers to
make sufficient and consistent contributions to ensure that
plans are adequately funded in all economic climates, and also
require additional contributions to be made by employers to
plans that are systematically underfunded.
Employers and unions shouldn't make promises to workers
they know can't be kept.
Too often, employers and union leaders have
negotiated benefit increases when pension plans are severely
underfunded--misleading workers, digging a deeper financial
hole for plans that are already underfunded, and increasing the
likelihood that pension plans will be terminated and taken over
by the PBGC, often providing lower benefits for workers.
All parties must be responsible for ensuring that
plans are fully funded, and all must be straightforward with
workers about the status of their benefits.
Workers deserve more accurate and meaningful disclosure
about the status of their pension plan.
Congress should provide workers and employers, in
the case of multiemployer plans, accurate and timely disclosure
of the financial health of their pension plans.
The economic health of the pension plans should be
disclosed to interested parties consistently and well before
any plan becomes significantly underfunded, and Congress should
make this relevant and timely information transparent.
Congress should ensure that hybrid plans, such as cash
balance pensions, remain a viable part of the defined benefit
system.
Cash balance plans represent an important part of
the defined benefit system and worker retirement security,
especially for women and low-income workers.
These plans are funded entirely by the employer,
are protected by the PBGC, and offer portable benefits that
allow workers to earn more generous benefits steadily
throughout their careers.
However, the continuous threat of legal liability
for employers offering cash balance plans is creating ongoing
uncertainty and undermining the retirement security of American
workers.
Simply put, if the fear of legal liability
encourages more employers to leave the defined benefit pension
system, it could have a devastating impact on workers and their
retirement.
Congress should consider solutions to ensure cash
balance pension plans remain a viable part of the defined
benefit system and a positive retirement security option for
workers and employers.
In December 2004, Boehner indicated a top priority for the
Education and the Workforce Committee in the 109th Congress
would be to work closely with Ways & Means Committee Chairman
Bill Thomas (R-CA) and other members of the Ways & Means
Committee to enact a comprehensive reform package to update
pension laws and strengthen worker retirement security.
Defined Contribution Reforms To Help Workers Protect & Expand Their
401(k) Accounts
During the 108th Congress, the House passed legislation,
written by EER Subcommittee members and supported by President
Bush, that sought to give rank-and-file workers more control
over 401(k) pension plans and better access to quality
investment advice regarding their retirement savings.
The legislation, dubbed the Pension Security Act, had its
origins in the 107th Congress. In his 2002 State of the Union
Address, President Bush had called on Congress to enact
important new safeguards to protect the pensions of millions of
American workers in the wake of the Enron collapse. Led by
members of the EER Subcommittee, the House responded quickly
and decisively to the President's call, taking action to
restore investor confidence in the nation's pension system. On
April 11, 2002, the House approved the Pension Security Act
(H.R. 3762) by a strong bipartisan margin of 255-163, with 46
House Democrats joining Republicans in voting to pass the bill.
Committee leaders renewed efforts to enact the legislation
when the 108th Congress began in 2003, re-introducing the
Pension Security Act as H.R. 1000. On May 14, 2003, the House
passed the bill by a vote of 271-157, with 49 Democrats joining
Republicans in support of the legislation.
The Pension Security Act (H.R. 1000) proposed giving
workers unprecedented new retirement security protections. The
reforms in the bill, Committee leaders noted, would have helped
to protect thousands of Enron and WorldCom employees who lost
their savings during their companies' collapses if it had been
law. The Pension Security Act included new safeguards and
options to give workers new freedom to diversify their
retirement savings within three years; expand worker access to
investment advice to help them manage their retirement
accounts; empower workers to hold company insiders accountable
for abuses; and give workers better information about their
pensions.
Specifically, the Pension Security Act included the
following worker protections:
Giving Workers Freedom To Diversify. The Pension Security
Act proposed giving employees new freedom to sell company stock
and diversify into other investment options. It proposed giving
employers the option of allowing workers to sell their company
stock three years after receiving it in their 401(k) plan (a
three-year rolling diversification option) or allowing workers
to sell their company stock within three years of service with
the company (a three-year diversification cliff).
The bill proposed prohibiting companies from forcing
employees to invest any of their own retirement savings
contributions in the stock of the employer. These provisions,
supporters noted, would give employers the flexibility to
promote employee ownership while protecting the employee's
interest in diversifying their portfolio. Under current law,
employers are allowed to restrict a worker's ability to sell
their company stock in certain situations until they are age 55
years old and/or have 10 years of service with the company,
supporters of the Pension Security Act noted.
Enhancing Worker Access to Quality Investment Advice. As
more and more employers provide 401(k) plans to their workers,
rank-and-file employees are shouldering more of the risk of
their investment--but these employees rarely have the time or
knowledge to actively manage these investments and most have no
access to quality investment advice through their employer,
Committee members noted. Thousands of rank-and-file Enron and
WorldCom employees might have been able to preserve their
retirement savings if they'd had access to a qualified adviser
who would have warned them in advance that they needed to
diversify, Committee members argued.
The Pension Security Act proposed providing rank-and-file
employees with access to a qualified investment advisor who
could inform them of the need to diversify and help them choose
appropriate investments. The bill included tough fiduciary and
disclosure safeguards to ensure that advice provided to
employees is solely in the employee's best interest. The House
passed the Pension Security Act's primary investment advice
provision as a stand-alone measure on November 15, 2001 (the
Retirement Security Advice Act) with the support of 64
Democrats. The Pension Security Act also provided a new tax
incentive, authored by Rep. Rob Portman (R-OH), to help
employees pay for the cost of retirement planning services.
Clarifying that Employers are Responsible for Worker
Savings During ``Blackouts.'' The Pension Security Act proposed
making clear that companies have a fiduciary responsibility for
workers' savings during ``blackout'' periods, when workers are
temporarily barred from making changes to their 401(k)
investments, generally due to an administrative change to the
plan. Companies deemed to have breached this responsibility
would be subject to stiff penalties under federal law under the
Pension Security Act.
Giving Workers Better Information About Their Pensions.
H.R. 1000 proposed requiring companies to give workers
quarterly benefit statements that would include information
about accounts, including the value of their assets, their
rights to diversify, and the importance of maintaining a
diversified portfolio.
Simplifying Pension Plans. The bill included a number of
provisions designed to make it easier for small businesses to
start and maintain defined benefit pension plans. For example,
it would have simplified reporting requirements for pension
plans with fewer than 25 participants. In addition, it would
have reduced Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC)
insurance premiums for small and new pension plans.
EXPANDING HEALTH CARE ACCESS FOR WORKING FAMILIES
With support from President Bush, members of the Education
and the Workforce Committee placed a high priority in the 108th
Congress on efforts to expand affordable health care coverage
for Americans who lack basic health insurance. The topic was a
significant focus for the Employer-Employee Relations
Subcommittee and Subcommittee Chairman Sam Johnson (R-TX)
throughout 2003 and 2004.
According to figures released by the U.S. Census Bureau in
August 2004, the number of Americans who have no health
insurance increased to 45 million Americans, an increase of 1.4
million people over the previous year. The ranks of the
uninsured have swelled again, in part, because excessive
government mandates and trial lawyer lawsuits drive up costs
and put health coverage out of reach for families with limited
means, Committee Republicans noted.
Subcommittee members focused during the 108th Congress on
the objective of ensuring all Americans have affordable health
insurance coverage options, with the primary goal of creating
affordable options to help the uninsured. Subcommittee Chairman
Johnson and other Committee Republicans continued to insist
that instead of imposing costly new mandates on employers or
health care providers, Congress should focus on real solutions
that make it easier for small employers to offer quality
benefits to their workers and new options that expand consumer
choice.
Responding to the Health Care Needs of Uninsured Working Families
On March 13, 2003, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the
Small Business Health Fairness Act (H.R. 660), introduced by
Subcommittee Chairman Johnson, Rep. Ernie Fletcher (R-KY),
Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Boehner (R-
OH), Rep. Cal Dooley (D-CA), and Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY).
The proposed measure would create association health plans
(AHPs), an access-expanding tool supported by President Bush
that would allow small businesses to band together through
associations and purchase quality health care at a lower cost.
The bill, supporters argued, would increase small businesses'
bargaining power with health care providers, give them freedom
from costly state-mandated benefit packages, and lower overhead
costs by as much as 30 percent to help employers to provide
quality health benefits for workers.
``Sixty percent, or 24 million, of uninsured Americans work
in small businesses. Some of these people are offered insurance
and turn it down because they can't pick up their part of the
tab,'' Johnson said. ``It's time we leveled the playing field
for small business and gave them the health care clout they
deserve.''
Ann Combs, the assistant U.S. Secretary of Labor for
employee benefits security, described the problem: ``Although
most working Americans receive health insurance from their
employers, small firms with fewer than 100 employees find it
particularly difficult to offer benefits. Just 49 percent of
these small businesses offer insurance, compared with 98
percent of larger firms with 100 or more employees.''
Calling AHPs a ``substantial solution to this problem,''
Combs said the bill would ``help make coverage a reality for
more small businesses.''
Phyllis Burlage, a small business owner who runs the
accounting firm Burlage Associates in Millersville, Maryland,
said her firm had been hit by a 45 percent increase in the
rates it pays to provide health care coverage for its workers.
``Without the ability to shop for more affordable options,
we are left with the choice to shift costs or drop coverage.
Association health plans would end the nightmare of health care
purchasing for small businesses,'' said Burlage. ``Simply put,
the lack of competition in the small group market is making
insurance company executives richer at small businesses'
expense.''
Gregory Scandlen, the director of the Center for Consumer
Driven Health Care at the Galen Institute, said AHPs would
``inject more competition, innovation and choice in a market
that is approaching monopoly conditions.''
``Greater competition should make health plans more
responsive to the demands of their customers, improve service,
expand benefit options, and increase the numbers of small
employers who provide coverage,'' Scandlen said.
On June 19, 2003, House passed the AHP bill by a vote of
262-162, with 36 House Democrats joining Republicans in voting
to pass the measure. The House passed the measure again on May
13, 2004, reiterating its commitment to helping the millions of
Americans without health insurance.
Committee leaders cited public opinion research during the
108th Congress showing strong support among the American public
for enactment of legislation allowing the creation of AHPs. A
March 2004 poll conducted for the Federation of American
Hospitals indicated 93% of Americans support AHPs as a means to
offer quality health care to uninsured working families. AHPs
were the most popular of all congressional proposals surveyed
in the opinion poll.
Examining Innovative Steps Employers Are Voluntarily Taking To Provide
Workers With Quality Health Care Benefits
On June 24, 2004, the Subcommittee held a hearing on new
steps being taken voluntarily by employers--without government
mandates--to ensure their workers get top quality health
benefits. As a result of rising health care costs, Committee
leaders noted, many employers are redesigning their health
plans and implementing new options and choices to educate
employees about health care costs and help them become better
health care consumers.
``With annual double-digit health care cost increases over
the last few years, employers are faced with the question of
how they will continue voluntarily providing the high level of
quality benefits they have in the past,'' said Subcommittee
Chairman Johnson. ``As a result, many employers are redesigning
their health plans and implementing new options to help
employees become more savvy consumers of health care.''
Johnson cited the example of the Texas-based Whole Foods
Market Inc., which in 2003 implemented a high deductible plan
combined with an employer-subsidized account. The results of
the consumer-driven plan were impressive, as overall medical
claim costs fell 13 percent from the year before yet the
quality of care remained high.
Members learned employers are using a variety of new health
plan options to address the rising cost of health care, while
still maintaining high-quality health plans for their workers.
``Health insurance plans have developed a spectrum of
`consumer choice' products that give workers the incentives and
the tools to become better consumers of health care,''
testified Rick Remmers, chief executive officer of Humana-
Kentucky/Indiana/Tennessee. ``By giving workers more control
over funds allocated for their health benefits, workers will be
more engaged in how they spend their money.''
Remmers cited a number of health care options being used by
employers, including products designed around tax-advantaged
spending accounts--such as health savings accounts, products
designed around tiered networks of providers, and products
designed around structured choice, where workers ``build their
own'' plans after the employer has chosen a core set of
benefits.
``These strategies will help America's health insurance
plans transform coverage and care options tomorrow in ways that
will streamline and strengthen the employer-based system,
rather than merely burdening it with added complexity and
costs,'' Remmers told Committee members.
Frank McArdle, manager of the Washington, D.C., research
office for Hewitt Associates, discussed the erosion of retiree
health coverage, citing a Hewitt study on the topic.
``Over the next three years, only two percent of employers
said they are very or somewhat likely to terminate all
subsidized health benefits for current retirees, whereas 20
percent said they are very or somewhat likely to terminate
subsidized benefits for future retirees,'' McArdle told
Committee members, noting that the skyrocketing cost of health
care was the main culprit in the erosion of benefits.
Giving consumers more choice and more control, and better
information to help them make the choices that are right for
them, will help to create a more affordable, more efficient,
and more desirable health system for employers and workers,
Committee leaders concluded.
The work of the Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee
during the 108th Congress helped to lay the groundwork for what
could be significant legislative action in the 109th Congress
to expand access to quality health care for millions of
Americans.
STRENGTHENING UNION DEMOCRACY AND IMPROVING ACCOUNTABILITY &
TRANSPARENCY ON BEHALF OF UNION MEMBERS
Strengthening the democratic rights of rank-and-file labor
union members has been an ongoing priority for members of the
Education and the Workforce Committee, and was a key priority
for members of the EER Subcommittee in the 108th Congress.
New Union Democracy Reforms Critical To Enhance Union Leadership
Accountability, Financial Transparency
During the 108th Congress, the U.S. Department of Labor
moved ahead with implementation of long-overdue and much needed
changes to the so-called LM-2 form, an important tool that is
intended to be used to ensure rank-and-file union members have
access to detailed information about the financial activities
of their unions. The Labor Department was strongly supported in
this effort by EER Subcommittee Chairman Sam Johnson (R-TX) and
Workforce Protections Subcommittee Chairman Charlie Norwood (R-
GA).
Committee leaders argued an updated LM-2 form was needed to
provide rank-and-file union members with the information
necessary to properly ensure union democracy, fiscal integrity,
and transparency in a manner consistent with the intent of
Congress when it enacted the 1959 Labor-Management Reporting
and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), which requires union leaders to
disclose certain information to union members about their
democratic rights, including information about member union
dues and how they are spent. The form, Johnson and other
Committee members argued, had not been significantly changed
for four decades, and was terribly outdated.
``There is little financial transparency or incentive for
unions to provide workers with detailed financial
information,'' Johnson said. ``Just as we have acted to hold
corporate leaders more accountable to the highest standards of
financial disclosure, the action by the Department will help
ensure that the country's unions will be held to a higher
standard. This means that millions of rank-and-file union
members will know exactly how their hard-earned dues are
spent.''
According to the U.S. Department of Labor, only the largest
and most financially sophisticated unions--approximately 20% of
the unions in the United States--will be materially affected by
the proposed reforms. The burden of compliance, according to
the Department, will be substantially reduced by new reporting
software it is developing for unions to use, free of charge, in
preparing and filing their reports.
Union Democracy Reforms Critical To Ensure Accountability and
Transparency
Hearings in the EER Subcommittee during the 108th Congress
revealed many labor unions fail to notify their members of the
democratic rights guaranteed to them under the Labor Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), the federal law that
requires union leaders to make certain disclosures to union
members about their democratic rights. The hearings called
attention to this ongoing problem, which Committee Republicans
said undermines union accountability and leaves a disturbing
number of rank-and-file union members in the dark about their
rights and options.
On June 24, 2003, the Subcommittee held a hearing on three
legislative proposals (H.R. 992, H.R. 993, and H.R. 994)
introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Johnson to update and
strengthen the LMRDA. The 1959 law was intended to protect the
civil liberties of union members, provide fair elections in
unions, and allow recourse in federal courts and the Labor
Department if the law is abused by union leaders. The Johnson
union democracy bills proposed a series of common-sense changes
intended to ensure greater transparency and accountability for
rank-and-file union members, and guarantee that the Labor
Department has the authority to safeguard the rights of
millions of working union members across the country.
``It is clear that Congress expected through the passage of
the LMRDA to ensure that union democracy would be the first
line of defense against union corruption, and that, armed with
knowledge, union members would elect leaders who work in their
best interests, and rid themselves of corrupt union officials
who serve their own interests,'' Johnson said at the hearing.
``Since 1959, the American workforce has changed. However, the
LMRDA has not.''
``It is our responsibility to examine the lack of
compliance and transparency of labor organizations and the lack
of information for thousands of rank-and-file union members,''
Johnson added. ``Let me be clear: I am not suggesting that we
should go after the majority of law-abiding unions, but shore
up loopholes for those one-third of union members who are not
getting what they are entitled to: fair, accurate, and full
disclosure of the facts as required by law.''
Lary Yud, deputy director at the U.S. Department of Labor's
Office of Labor-Management Standards, testified before the
panel, noting federal statistics showing more than 43% of
unions either filed their financial disclosure reports late or
failed to file at all during 2002.
``A significant number of unions consistently fail to
comply with the statutory requirements that they timely file
annual reports with DOL detailing their finances,'' Yud told
members. ``The end result is that unions may ignore the
statutorily-imposed deadline [for filing under the LMRDA] * * *
without consequence.'' Because of deficiencies in current law,
Yud added, the Labor Department ``does not have sufficient
enforcement tools to protect and inform union members.''
Paul Rosenzweig, senior legal research fellow for the
Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage
Foundation, also testified before the panel.
``Knowledge and information are among the most powerful
tools in a democracy and union members are entitled to
information about the activities of the organization to which
they belong--just as the American public is entitled to
information about Congress and shareholders are entitled to
information about a corporation,'' Rosenzweig told members of
the Subcommittee.
Rosenzweig testified in support of H.R. 993, which proposed
allowing the Labor Secretary to assess civil penalties on
unions and employers that either file late, or fail to file at
all, financial disclosure reports.
``The imposition of civil penalties will have a deterrent
effect of precisely the sort that is necessary,'' Rosenzweig
said, adding that the bill would be an ``essential tool for
achieving compliance with the reporting requirements of the
[LMRDA].''
On October 2, 2003, the Subcommittee approved each measure.
A summary of each bill:
The Union Members' Right-to-Know Act (H.R. 992)
proposed clarifying that unions must disclose to union members
certain information about their rights, such as member union
dues, membership rights, member disciplinary procedures, the
election and removal of union officers, the calling of regular
and special meetings, and otherdemocratic rights. Hearings
revealed that many unions have argued that notifying members of their
democratic rights just once satisfies their legal obligation under the
LMRDA, and that they never have to notify members again, even members
who started work long after the notice took place. The bill proposed
requiring unions to make these disclosures to members within 90 days of
joining a union, essentially codifying the federal Fourth Circuit Court
of Appeals' decision in Thomas v. International Association of
Machinists.
The Labor Management Accountability Act (H.R. 993)
proposed allowing the Labor Secretary to assess civil penalties
on unions and employers that either file late, or fail to file
at all, financial disclosure reports, which give rank-and-file
union members vital information about how their own union
leaders spend union dues. The Labor Department has no effective
enforcement authority to ensure that union leaders or employers
comply with the law and file these reports, H.R. 993 supporters
noted. Labor Department data from 2002 shows approximately 43%
of unions either filed their forms late or did not file them at
all.
The Union Member Information Enforcement Act (H.R.
994) proposed authorizing the Secretary of Labor to investigate
union member complaints of a union's failure to meet LMRDA
disclosure requirements and bring suit on their behalf to
enforce the law. Under current law, the Labor Department cannot
enforce the law on behalf of union members, thus forcing them
to hire their own attorney and challenge the legal expertise
available to their union. The high cost of litigation is the
main reason why unions have been able to ignore this legal
obligation for more than four decades, H.R. 994 supporters
argue.
Examining Efforts To Undermine the Secret Ballot Election Process
The EER Subcommittee also held hearings during the 108th
Congress to investigate what many believe are increasing
efforts by union bosses to circumvent current worker protection
laws by abusing the secret ballot process. Circumventing the
law in this manner, Committee Republicans argued, undermines
union democracy and the democratic rights of individual union
members.
On April 22, 2004, the EER Subcommittee held a hearing on
emerging trends and tactics in labor organizing campaigns,
including heightened pressure on employers to recognize unions
based on a ``card-check'' system and therefore forego the
customary secret ballot election supervised by the National
Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that gives workers the ability to
freely vote their conscience without fear of reprisal. The
April 22 hearing was the first in a series of hearings to, as
Subcommittee Chairman Johnson explained, ``examine what is
working and what is not: where federal labor law is played out
as Congress intended, and where it has fallen short, and where
and how these laws might be changed to better address the
realities of the 21st century workforce.''
The April 22, 2204 hearing focused on use of a ``card
check'' system under which a union gathers ``authorization
cards'' purportedly signed by workers expressing their desire
for the union to represent them.
``The increased use of card checks, and the pressures that
result from these corporate campaigns raise red flags for a
number of reasons,'' Johnson said at the hearing. ``By their
very nature, card checks leave employees open to harassment,
intimidation, and union pressure, and strip workers of the
right to choose, freely and anonymously, whether to unionize.
Equally important, the evidence suggests that secret ballot
elections are more accurate indicators than authorization cards
of whether employees actually wish to be recognized by a
union.''
Charles Cohen, partner at the law firm Morgan Lewis and
former member of the National Labor Relations Board under
President Clinton, discussed the importance of maintaining the
integrity of the secret ballot election process, and cited
numerous court decisions that expressed similar views. Cohen
cited a court decision, NLRB v. S. S. Logan Packing Co., to
make his case. Cohen also disputed contentions that the NLRB's
election process is slow.
``In fiscal year 2003, 92.5% of all initial representation
elections were conducted within 56 days of the filing of the
petition,'' Cohen told members. ``Based on my experience over
the past 30 years, these statistics demonstrate that the
Board's election process has become even more efficient over
time.''
``Unions are currently winning over 50% of NLRB secret
ballot elections involving new organizing,'' Cohen added.
Clyde Jacob, partner at the law firm Jones Walker in New
Orleans, Louisiana, described the corporate campaign waged
against Trico Marine Services, Inc., where workers reported
``abusive, coercive, and intimidating tactics in the card
solicitation process.''
According to Jacob, because the company would not sign a
neutrality agreement, which relies only on authorization cards
for legal recognition, ``it faced all manner of attacks on the
corporation, including the disruption of its annual meetings
and the meetings of its customers, veiled threats to customers
and suppliers, attempts to hurt the company within the
investment community, the disruption of trade shows and
conventions at which the company attended or was featured, and
threatened secondary boycotts of the company's subsidiaries in
other parts of the world, including Norway, Nigeria, Brazil,
and Southeast Asia.''
``Union authorization cards play an integral role in our
nation's labor laws on union organizing. They begin the
representation process--but they should never be the end of
that process--that should always belong to the democratic
secret ballot,'' Jacob continued. ``In my experience, the risk
of harassment, intimidation, and forgery in the card
solicitation process is too substantial to permit union cards
to be a method under the Act by which a union can establish
legal representation. The quiet, sober, and private atmosphere
of the voting booth should be the preferred method in all
cases.''
On May 12, 2004, Committee leaders, led by Workforce
Protections Subcommittee Chairman Norwood, introduced the
Secret Ballot Protection Act to safeguard worker rights to a
secret ballot election on decisions about whether to form a
union.
Under current law, Norwood noted, employers may voluntarily
recognize unions based on card checks, but they are not
required to do so; they may insist upon an election
administered by the NLRB. The Secret Ballot Protection Act
proposed prohibiting a union from being recognized based on a
mere card check, providing that a union may only be recognized
by an employer and certified by the NLRB if it has won majority
support in a secret ballot election conducted by the NLRB, and
securing the right of every worker to a secret-ballot vote on
whether to unionize.
``It's no secret that corporate campaigns to discredit
employers publicly have become a key organizing tactic used by
union bosses across the country,'' said Norwood. ``It's
outrageous that union bosses are using these types of tactics
at the expense of secret ballot elections and depriving rank-
and-file workers of the ability to freely vote their conscience
without fear of retaliation.''
``A worker's right to vote in a fair and secret ballot
election is a fundamental right that simply cannot be taken
away in order to line the pockets of union bosses,'' Norwood
added. ``This important bill ensures workers have the right to
a secret ballot election, protects workers from intimidation,
threats, misinformation, or coercion by union organizers, and
eliminates a union's ability to pressure an employer to agree
to card check recognition.''
``This important measure would guarantee workers the right
to an anonymous, secret ballot election conducted by the NLRB
and eliminate the use of intimidation and threats by organizers
to coerce workers into joining a union,'' said Subcommittee
Chairman Johnson, an original co-sponsor of the Secret Ballot
Protection Act.
On September 30, 2004, the Subcommittee held a hearing on
Norwood's legislation to hear from expert witnesses on the need
to protect the democratic rights of union members across the
country.
Thomas Riley, a service sales representative for the CINTAS
Corporation in Allentown, Pennsylvania, described his
experience from an employee perspective about the union card
check campaign waged against his company.
``The union started sending information to my customers,
making all kinds of allegations about the company--and about
the products and services that we provide,'' Riley recalled.
``I take great pride in what I do and I was personally offended
by what the union was saying to my customers.''
``The union distributed notices to other unions, telling
them to find ways to quit doing business with us,'' Riley told
members. ``I had one unionized customer who one day was very
happy with our products and my service, and the next day
stopped doing business with us. This union campaign hurt me and
family directly by taking money out of my paycheck. And this is
the same union that, on one hand, says it wants to represent
me, while at the same time is taking food off my family's
table. We shouldn't overlook the fact that it's the workers who
are harmed many times by these union campaigns.''
Riley concluded by saying the Secret Ballot Protection Act
was necessary to ``protect our democratic rights.''
``We have a democratic election process. I say we use it. I
say we protect it,'' Riley urged members.
Richard Hermanson, vice president of the independent United
Screeners Association Local 1 in San Francisco, California,
described similar tactics he has witnessed.
``They wait after work for the unsigned to clock out and
pressure them to `make a commitment' and sign cards,''
Hermanson said. ``This one-on-one targeting is not merely
attempts to convey information about the benefits of
unionization--they are attempts to get signatures for
recognition without the privacy of a secret ballot.''
``The decision on whether to be represented by a labor
organization is to me the most important decision an employee
can make in the workplace. This decision should be determined
by a secret ballot election,'' Hermanson added, noting his
support for the Norwood bill. ``My experience over this period
suggests to me that card count campaigns carry the risk of a
union being granted recognition while it does not carry true
majority support, that there is a big difference between a
majority of signatures and majority support.''
John Raudabaugh, partner at the law firm Butzel Long and a
former board member of the National Labor Relations Board,
discussed the contradictory position many labor unions take
with regard to secret ballot elections.
``Interestingly, while organized labor and certain
legislators advance card check and eschew the secret ballot
election process for certifying union representation, they
embrace the secret ballot process as a check on an employer's
withdrawal of recognition,'' said Raudabaugh. ``Organized labor
wants the deliberative secret ballot election on the `back end'
when loss of majority status is at issue but rejects it on the
`front end' when soliciting signatures to demand recognition.''
Raudabaugh described H.R. 4343 as a ``limited, but critical
repair to our nation's private sector labor relations law'' and
said the measure would ``eliminate needless litigation.''
Examining Union Salting Abuses That Harm U.S. Economy
On May 10, 2004, the Employer-Employee Relations
Subcommittee held a field hearing in Round Rock, Texas, to
examine union ``salting'' tactics designed to organize non-
union workplaces--tactics many legislators believe are unfair
to both employers and workers. (The practice of ``salting''
occurs when a union organizer or salt applies for a job at a
non-union workplace with the express purpose not to work for
the employer, but to encourage non-union employees to form a
union, often at the expense of the health of the company and
the workingfamilies that depend on its success.) Subcommittee
member John Carter (R-TX) hosted the field hearing in his congressional
district.
``Certain unions use `salts' to cause deliberate harm to
businesses by increasing their costs and forcing them to spend
time, energy, and money to defend themselves against frivolous
charges, and sometimes, to run employers out of business,''
said Subcommittee Chairman Johnson. ``An employer has little
choice but to hire these individuals. If they do not, they will
soon find themselves defending unfair labor practice charges at
the National Labor Relations Board, which can be economically
devastating.''
Rep. Carter said he'd ``heard from many of our constituents
that salting is an unfair practice leading to the employment of
union members who are not interested in providing quality work
or giving their best to their employer. As we face the
challenges of job creation in this country, it is time to
question a practice that in fact destroys people's livelihoods,
companies, and demolishes the American Dream. Our focus should
be on helping employers create more jobs, not tearing them down
and destroying them.''
Carter cosponsored legislation introduced by Subcommittee
Vice Chairman Jim DeMint (R-SC), the Truth in Employment Act
(H.R. 1793), which would prohibit salting practices by making
clear an employer is not required to hire someone who is not a
``bona fide'' applicant, in that the applicant's primary
purpose in seeking the job is not to work for the employer.
Shelly Runyan, vice president of Titus Electrical
Contracting in Austin, said her company had ``spent over half a
million dollars in legal fees, not to mention the cost of lost
productivity, defending ourselves against the malicious and
groundless attacks.''
Runyan described how many salts are ``not legitimate
employees'' that ``work toward the mutual benefit of the
employee, employer, and customer,'' but rather are ``often
intentionally disruptive and combative.''
``While employed by us, we have had salts physically
assault our team members, they have been arrested off our
jobsites, and we have lost customers because of them,'' Runyan
told members of the panel. ``They have intentionally sabotaged
and concealed electrical work, in one case causing an
electrical explosion. And yet, when terminated, invariably the
NLRB would attempt to prosecute charges against us for
legitimate terminations.''
Tom Nesbitt, senior associate at the law firm Fulbright &
Jaworski in Austin, Texas, described numerous union tactics
designed to harass law-abiding companies. Nesbit told members
one of his clients was ``subject to massive legal proceedings
initiated without any apparent regard for the merits of the
claims, and I never saw any evidence of a genuine effort by the
union to be certified as the bargaining representative of my
client's employees.''
``On one of the days the union picketed in front of my
client's shop, a paid union organizer set up a video camera and
proceeded to film employees, customers, and vendors who came to
do business with my client,'' Nesbitt recalled. ``Believing
this to be an attempt to intimidate employees, customers and
vendors, my client decided to document the paid union
organizer's actions. My client got a camera, stepped out onto
the front steps of her own place of business, and took a
photograph of the paid union organizer while he made a public
display of videotaping her. The union filed an unfair labor
practice charge, calling this unlawful surveillance.''
Sharon McGee, president and CEO of RM Mechanical in Austin,
also addressed the hearing.
``Salting is not merely an organizing tool,'' McGee
testified. ``It has become an instrument of economic
destruction aimed at non-union companies that has little to do
with organizing.''
``Salting abuse uses coercive governmental power to
accomplish the unions'' goals, rather than competing fairly and
ethically based on merit,'' said McGee. ``Ultimately, it is the
American taxpayer who loses by having hard-earned tax dollars
go to sustain the union's tactic of generating frivolous
charges and lawsuits. The government should not be forced to
use taxpayers' dollars to support a flawed system that allows
tens of thousands of cases to be brought against employers that
are later dismissed as having no merit.''
The hearing was the second in a series conducted by the
Subcommittee to examine federal labor law, look at current
trends, and determine whether federal laws achieve their
intended results.
INVESTIGATING QUESTIONABLE STOCK TRANSACTIONS AT ULLICO INC.
In 2003, the Education and the Workforce Committee
completed an investigation into questionable stock transactions
at the union-owned life insurance company ULLICO Inc.,
questioning whether the scandal-plagued company violated
federal labor and pension laws. Committee Chairman John Boehner
(R-OH), Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee Chairman Sam
Johnson (R-TX), and Workforce Protections Subcommittee Chairman
Charlie Norwood (R-GA) led the investigation.
Based on witness testimony and more than 95,000 documents
the Committee reviewed during its inquiry, Committee leaders
determined serious questions existed about whether the
questionable transactions at ULLICO violated federal labor law
(the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act) and federal
pension law (the Employee Retirement Income Security Act).
Republicans noted these questions were not addressed in a
report prepared by former Illinois Gov. James Thompson, who was
appointed by ULLICO to do an independent investigation into the
ULLICO transactions, apparently because ULLICO officials had
instructed Thompson not to look into those areas.
Based on a review of these documents, the Committee held a
hearing on June 17, 2003, to examine whether the members of the
ULLICO board of directors who participated in alleged insider
stock deals acted in the best interest of their unions and
union members. At this hearing, key witnesses connected to
ULLICO did little to ease congressional concerns over the
possibility that the sweetheart stock deals at the union-
operated company were a potential violation of federal labor
and pension laws. During the hearing, former ULLICO Chairman
and CEO Robert Georgine refused to testify, instead invoking
his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination.
``At the very same time that union leaders were joining the
chorus of well-deserved criticism of Enron and others for
corporate misconduct, ULLICO set up a system of insider stock
deals that made millions for the board at the expense of rank-
and-file union members,'' Chairman Boehner said at the hearing.
``Our Committee's investigation has concluded that the union
leaders who set up these sweetheart stock transactions may well
have violated federal labor and pension laws.''
``There are many questions that remain unanswered about the
ULLICO scandal, and rank-and-file union members deserve
answers,'' Boehner added.
``I am deeply troubled that the Committee did not hear
testimony from perhaps the only person who could answer some of
the tough questions, ULLICO's former chairman, Mr. Georgine,''
said Subcommittee Chairman Johnson. ``I would have liked to ask
Mr. Georgine, how is it possible that if Board members profited
at the expense of these pension funds--and the record is clear
that they did--did they not violate their fiduciary duties to
those pension funds under ERISA?''
``When are sweetheart stock deals no longer shady stock-
selling schemes? Apparently, only when the people reaping the
windfalls are big labor bosses. Sadly, this came at the expense
of rank-and-file union members,'' Johnson noted. ``It's time
for the Labor Department to thoroughly investigate ULLICO
transactions and find out once and for all who broke the law.
We demand high integrity from corporate America. Let's demand
high integrity from labor unions, too. It's that simple.''
``The corruption and blatant disregard for workers that
exists among far too many union leaders and was allowed to take
place at ULLICO is troubling and simply unacceptable,'' added
Norwood. ``The rights and essential financial interests of
workers should never take a backseat to the greed and personal
gain of the very people they have entrusted with their hard-
earned dollars. Having the Department of Labor take a closer
look at the legality of what took place at ULLICO is a big step
forward in ensuring that it doesn't happen again.''
On October 28, 2003, the Committee released the final
report on its ULLICO investigation, questioning whether the
company violated federal labor and pension laws and calling on
the U.S. Department of Labor to strictly scrutinize that
question of law and fully investigate the matter.
SUPPORTING EFFORTS TO PRESERVE RETIREE HEALTH CARE BENEFITS
During the 108th Congress, members of the Education and the
Workforce Committee strongly supported common sense proposals
to preserve health care benefits for retirees across the
country. On April 22, 2004, the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) voted to move forward with a common-sense
regulation--supported by a number of key Committee Democrats
and Republicans, as well as employers, workers, and organized
labor--to ensure employers are not forced to reduce or
eliminate retiree health benefits for millions of American
seniors in order to avoid potential age discrimination
liability.
Supporters of the revision argued the updated rule was
needed because of a court ruling (Erie County Retirees
Association v. County of Erie) which had determined an employer
that voluntarily provides retiree health benefits is prohibited
from reducing those benefits once an individual becomes
eligible for Medicare. If this court decision were applied
broadly, supporters argued, it would result in almost all
employers reducing benefits provided to early retirees in order
to meet a nondiscrimination test that would require them to
provide the ``same'' benefits to early retirees and post-65
retirees.
The proposed EEOC rule allows retirees to continue to
receive the benefits they are currently getting. Most retirees
currently receive benefits that are already being coordinated
with Medicare. The Erie County decision threatened that
practice and jeopardized voluntarily provided retiree health
benefits altogether. The EEOC regulation would restore the
legality of the current system.
The EEOC regulation, supporters noted, would allow
employers to continue to provide retirees with the health
benefits they want and need, protecting the retiree health
benefits of older workers so that all retirees have access to
adequate health insurance. The rule, supporters noted, does not
require any ``cuts'' to current retiree health benefits, and
does not encourage employers who now offer such benefits to
alter those benefits in any way. Nor does the rule affect
Medicare benefits in any way, supporters pointed out.
The EEOC's proposed regulation is consistent with a letter
sent by several top Committee members in December 2003
expressing bipartisan support for the EEOC rule. The letter was
signed by Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John
Boehner (R-OH), Employer-Employee Relations (EER) Subcommittee
Chairman Johnson (R-TX), and Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ), the
EER Subcommittee's ranking Democratic member.
``We should be encouraging employers to continue providing
generous health benefits to retirees, and this regulation will
help ensure they are able to do so without subjecting
themselves to groundless charges of age discrimination,''
Chairman Boehner said in support of the rule. ``In an era of
escalating health care costs, this important clarification is
necessary to help prevent Americans across the country from
losing their retiree health coverage.''
``The practice of providing health care benefits to those
who retire before age 65 is critically important, and should be
encouraged. Unfortunately, the Erie County court decision puts
the retiree health benefits of millions of American seniors in
jeopardy,'' said Subcommittee Chairman Johnson in support of
the Commission's vote. ``The Commission has taken an important
step toward ensuring employers are able to continue to provide
health care coverage to early retirees while still complying
with age discrimination laws.''
Some Committee leaders also criticized the lobbying
organization AARP for opposing the proposed revision. They
noted AARP's stance, if put into practice, would endanger the
retiree health benefits of millions of American seniors--the
very Americans AARP claims to exist to protect--by encouraging
employers to drop health benefits they currently provide
voluntarily.
``The AARP's stance on this EEOC regulation promotes the
very result AARP says it is opposed to, and it will surely
cause more workers to lose their retiree health coverage,''
said Chairman Boehner. ``It is inconsistent for an organization
to claim it supports preserving retiree health benefits while
at the same time saying it opposes this proposed regulation,
which the EEOC was asked to propose by both Republicans and
Democrats in Congress. The AARP can't have it both ways. Its
position would leave America's seniors vulnerable without their
critical retiree benefits.''
``The AARP should be ashamed for using misleading and
deceptive scare tactics that are putting retiree health
benefits in jeopardy,'' said Subcommittee Chairman Johnson.
``We should be encouraging employers to continue providing
generous health benefits to retirees, and this regulation will
help ensure employers can still offer these benefits without
subjecting themselves to groundless charges of age
discrimination.''
Committee leaders also noted the breadth and depth of
support for the EEOC's decision. The rule received support from
a diverse array of organizations, including the AFL-CIO,
America's Health Insurance Plans, the American Benefits
Council, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, American Federation of Teachers, the ERISA Industry
Committee, Honeywell, the HR Policy Association, the
International Association of Fire Fighters, the National
Association of Manufacturers, the National Education
Association, the National Rural Electric Cooperative
Association, the Society for Human Resource Management, and the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
EXAMINING THE PROMISE AND IMPLICATIONS OF GENETIC TESTING
Led by members of the EER Subcommittee, the Education and
the Workforce Committee devoted time in 2003 and 2004 to a
detailed examination of current laws and regulations, federal
and state, that seek to promote genetic non-discrimination and
individual privacy, and govern the potential use of genetic
information in employer-sponsored health plans.
The EER Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction on matters
relating to employer-provided health insurance and employment-
related aspects of the genetic non-discrimination issue,
conducted a major hearing on the issue on July 22, 2004. As
part of this hearing, the Subcommittee examined efforts being
taken voluntarily by employers to ban genetic discrimination,
as well as the effectiveness of current laws. Witnesses urged
Congress to proceed cautiously before crafting any new
mandates.
``With this unprecedented potential for discovery comes an
equally weighty challenge for public policymakers. That is
information that seems to indicate the possibility of illness,
disease, or other disorders could be used unjustly against
people and their families,'' said Subcommittee Chairman Sam
Johnson (R-TX). ``Employment decisions should be based on an
individual's qualifications and ability to perform a job, not
on the basis of factors, genetic or otherwise, that have no
bearing on job performance.''
Kathy Hudson, director of the Genetics and Public Policy
Center at Johns Hopkins University, compared the mapping and
sequencing of the human genome to the 1969 moon landing in
terms of its potential to revolutionize human society.
``Within a dozen years, it may be common medical practice
to test each one of us for our individual susceptibilities to
common illnesses,'' Hudson told members. ``This knowledge will
allow the use of individualized preventive medicine to maintain
wellness, rather than spending society's health care resources
on expensive and ineffective treatments for advanced disease.''
``The challenge is to nurture scientific exploration,
encourage the translation of these new discoveries into life
saving medicines, and to put in place public policies that
reflect our core American values that prevent the unjust,
unfair, and discriminatory use of genetic information,'' Hudson
added.
Lawrence Lorber, partner at the law firm Proskauer Rose in
Washington, D.C., also testified on the topic.
``There is little to no evidence of employer collection or
misuse of genetic information in today's workplace,'' Lorber
said. ``Indeed, there is but one recorded case alleging
inappropriate collection and misuse of employee genetic
information by a private employer. [T]he EEOC prosecuted that
company under the ADA and, through settlement, recovered over
$2 million for the affected employees in addition to injunctive
relief.''
``Despite this lack of evidence, proponents of broad
genetic legislation continue to claim that a new law imposing
significant compliance costs is necessary in order to deter
employers from collecting and misusing genetic information,''
Lorber continued. ``Yet, if anything, the lack of litigation
under available avenues of redress, such as the ADA, Title VII,
and the multitude of state laws, indicates that existing legal
protections are a more than adequate deterrent against employer
collection and misuse of genetic information.''
Tom Wildsmith, chairman of the genetic testing task force
of the American Academy of Actuaries, a nonpartisan public
policy organization, agreed.
``For the employment-based health insurance system, the use
of genetic information in individual underwriting is not a
significant issue,'' Wildsmith told Subcommittee members.
``Personal health information is already subject to a variety
of protections.''
Subcommittee members noted several existing laws govern the
privacy and use of genetic information, and protect against
discrimination based on genetic factors, including Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), the 1964
Civil Rights Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA). In addition, members noted, 32 states have enacted laws
that further restrict the use of genetic information in health
insurance underwriting and employment decisions.
II. Hearings Held by the Subcommittee
108th Congress, First Session
February 13, 2003--Hearing on ``The Pension Security Act:
New Pension Protections to Safeguard the Retirement Savings of
American Workers'' (108-2)
March 13, 2003--Hearing on H.R. 660, ``Small Business
Health Fairness Act'' (108-10)
June 4, 2003--Hearing on ``Strengthening Pension Security:
Examining the Health and Future of Defined Benefit Pension
Plans'' (108-18)
June 24, 2003--Hearing on `` Union Democracy Reforms to the
Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act: H.R. 992, the
Union Members' Right-to-Know Act; H.R. 993, the Labor-
Management Accountability Act; and H.R. 994, the Union Member
Information Enforcement Act'' (108-22)
July 15, 2003--Hearing on ``Examining Pension Security and
Defined Benefit Plans: The Bush Administration's Proposal to
replace the 30-year Treasury Rate'' (Jointly with the Committee
on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures)
(108-26)
108th Congress, Second Session
March 18, 2004--Hearing on ``Reforming and Strengthening
Defined Benefit Plans: Examining the Health of the
Multiemployer Pension System'' (108-49)
April 22, 2004--Hearing on ``Developments in Labor Law:
Examining Trends and Tactics in Labor Organization Campaigns''
(108-52)
April 29, 2004--Hearing on ``Examining Long-Term Solutions
to Reform and Strengthen the Defined Benefit Pension System''
(108-55)
May 10, 2004--Field Hearing on ``Examining Union `Salting'
Abuses and Organizing Tactics that Harm the U.S. Economy'' in
Round Rock, Texas (108-57)
June 24, 2004--Hearing on ``Examining Innovative Health
Insurance Options for Workers & Employers'' (108-66)
July 22, 2004--Hearing on ``Genetic Non-Discrimination:
Examining the Implications for Workers and Employers'' (108-64)
September 30, 2004--Hearing on H.R. 4343, ``Secret Ballot
Protection Act of 2004'' (108-74)
III. Markups Held by the Subcommittee
108th Congress, First Session
April 8, 2003--H.R. 660, ``Small Business Health Fairness
Act of 2003'' was ordered favorably reported, as amended, to
the Full Committee by a vote of 13-8.
October 2, 2003--H.R. 992, Union Members Right-to-Know Act
was ordered favorably reported to the Full Committee by a vote
of 12-10. H.R. 993, Labor Management Accountability Act was
ordered favorably reported to the Full Committee by a vote of
12-10. H.R. 994, Union Member Information Enforcement Act was
ordered favorably reported to the Full Committee by a vote of
12-10.
IV. Subcommittee Statistics
Total Number of Bills and Resolutions Referred to Subcommittee.... 123
Total Number of Hearings.......................................... 12
Field......................................................... 1
Joint with Other Committees................................... 1
Total Number of Subcommittee Markup Sessions...................... 2
Total Number of Bills Reported From Subcommittee.................. 4
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS
I. Summary of Activities
The Workforce Protections Subcommittee, chaired by Rep.
Charlie Norwood (R-GA), devoted significant energy and
attention during the 108th Congress to the needs of American
workers and their families. The Subcommittee focused particular
attention on priorities such as improving worker safety,
strengthening overtime pay rights for low and middle-income
workers, and allowing working parents the right to choose to
spend more time with their families.
During the 108th Congress, Subcommittee members built on
efforts by the Bush administration to promote voluntary
cooperation programs that have proven successful in reducing
workplace injuries and illnesses. On May 18, 2004, the House
passed four bills sponsored by Subcommittee Chairman Norwood
designed to improve job safety for working Americans. House
passage of the measures helped to lay the groundwork for future
work on the issue and legislative action in the 109th Congress
to promote improved workplace safety.
On April 9, 2003, the full Education and the Workforce
Committee approved the Family Time Flexibility Act (H.R. 1119),
introduced by Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL). The proposal called for
allowing hourly private sector workers to choose paid time off
as compensation for working overtime hours instead of overtime
pay, giving them the same rights and choices enjoyed by
government workers.
Subcommittee members also helped to lead congressional
efforts to support the new worker overtime protections adopted
in 2004 by the U.S. Department of Labor. The Department's final
rule, which went into effect on August 23, 2004, raised the
salary threshold from $8,060 a year to $23,660 annually,
ensuring that millions more low-income workers are
automatically entitled to overtime pay.
The following summary contains more comprehensive details
about these and other activities of the Workforce Protections
Subcommittee during the 108th Congress.
ENHANCING WORKER SAFETY, PROMOTING FAIRNESS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES
Workforce Protections Subcommittee members, led by
Subcommittee Chairman Charlie Norwood (R-GA), worked tirelessly
during the 108th Congress to promote efforts to improve
workplace safety and reduce workplace injuries and illness.
Subcommittee members focused on ensuring Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA) enforcement efforts are
undertaken in an evenhanded manner that promotes fairness for
small business owners making good faith efforts to comply with
health and safety laws. Improving worker safety and health is
good for workers and enhances competitiveness for employers,
Subcommittee members argued, particularly for small businesses
that are the engine of economic growth and job creation in the
21st Century economy.
Subcommittee members used the hearing process to learn
about OSHA regulations, which have historically been among the
most complex and difficult legal requirements imposed on
employers. For many employers, especially smaller employers,
compliance with OSHA regulations is a challenge even with help
from experts, Subcommittee members learned.
During a Subcommittee hearing, held on July 17, 2003, Brian
Landon, owner and operator of Landon's Car Wash & Laundry in
Canton, Pennsylvania, testified about his experiences as a
small business owner and the struggles he and other small
employers face as they seek to comply with complex OSHA
regulations and the enforcement of citations.
``Employers aren't looking for ways to get around OSHA, we
are just trying to decipher the myriad of regulations that the
laws present,'' Landon testified. ``Employers like myself put
the highest premium on the safety and health of our
employees.''
Arthur Sapper, a member of the OSHA Practice Group of the
law firm of McDermott, Will & Emery, and a noted practitioner
of OSHA law for nearly 30 years, discussed the disparities that
exist between large and small employers in defending against
OSHA citations.
``Large employers can afford to hire experienced OSHA
counsel, find the evidence proving that OSHA's position is
'unreasonable,' and bear the litigation costs,'' Sapper
testified. ``But small employers have no such hope. The result
is occasional justice for large employers and no justice for
small ones.''
A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released on
March 30, 2003, said voluntary partnerships between OSHA and
employers ``have considerably reduced their rates of injury and
illness'' and have fostered ``better working relationships with
OSHA, improved productivity, and decreased worker compensation
costs.''
Workplace injuries and fatalities declined significantly
during President Bush's first term, a fact that was highlighted
by Subcommittee Republicans during the closing days of the
108th Congress. In a statement praising outgoing Assistant
Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health John
Henshaw, Reps. John Boehner (R-OH), chairman of the Education
and the Workforce Committee, and Norwood noted that the
workplace fatality rate had declined by 11% over the previous
five years.
In order to build on these efforts, on May 18, 2004, the
House passed four bills sponsored by Norwood designed to
improve workplace safety, enhance business competitiveness, and
foster more job creation to spur the economy. The measures
called for improving worker safety by making it easier for
employers to work voluntarily and proactively with OSHA to
ensure safe and secure workplaces. The four bills collectively
proposed:
Allowing Small Businesses to Have their Day in
Court. The Occupational Safety and Health Small Business Day in
Court Act (H.R. 2728) called for giving the Occupational Safety
and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) additional flexibility to
make exceptions to the arbitrary 15-day deadline for employers
to file responses to OSHA citations when a small business
misses the deadline by mistake or for good reason. Under
current legal interpretation, employers who fail to meet this
15-day deadline lose their right to a day in court, regardless
of whether there were intervening circumstances that caused an
employer to inadvertently miss the deadline. Subcommittee
members argued the bill would restore some common-sense and
flexibility to the law. On May 18, 2004, the House passed the
measure by a vote of 251-177, with 27 Democrats supporting the
bill.
Ensuring a Timely Review of Backlogged Cases. The
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Efficiency Act
(H.R. 2729) called for increasing the membership of OSHRC from
three to five members to ensure cases are reviewed in a timely
fashion. Because a quorum of two (of the three) commissioners
is needed for decision-making, OSHRC has in the past been
unable to act at all. The appointment process is sometimes
controversial, Subcommittee members noted, leading to
vacancies, and sometimes Commissioners must recuse themselves
from consideration of cases, meaning a situation is created
where even if there is one seat open, there is no working
quorum. Subcommittee members argued increasing membership to
five Commissioners would help ensure that cases are reviewed in
a more timely fashion. On May 18, 2004, the House passed the
bill by a vote of 228-199, with six Democrats voting for the
measure.
Establishing Independent Review of OSHA Citations.
The Occupational Safety and Health Independent Review of OSHA
Citations Act (H.R. 2730) proposed restoring independent review
of OSHA citations by clarifying that OSHRC is an independent
judicial entity given deference by courts that review OSHA
issues. Congress passed the OSHA law only after being assured
that judicial review would be conducted by ``an autonomous,
independent commission which, without regard to the Secretary,
can find for or against him on the basis of individual
complaints.'' Subcommittee members argued the bill would
restore the original system of checks and balances intended by
Congress when it enacted the OSHA law and ensures the
Commission (``the Court''), and not OSHA (``the prosecutor''),
would be the party who interprets the law and provides an
independent review of OSHA citations. On May 18, 2004, the
House passed the measure by a vote of 224-204, with nine
Democrats supporting the bill.
Allowing Small Employers to Recover Attorneys'
Fees. The Occupational Safety and Health Small Employer Access
to Justice Act (H.R. 2731) called for leveling the playing
field for small businesses and encouraging OSHA to better
assess the merits of a case before it brings unnecessary
enforcement actions to court against small businesses. Under
current law, the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) allows
small business owners to recover attorneys' fees if the owner
successfully challenges a citation. However, if OSHA can
establish that its enforcement action was ``substantially
justified'' or the result of ``special circumstances,'' small
businesses can be refused attorneys' fees even if OSHA loses
the case in court, Subcommittee members noted. Historically,
the law's ``substantially justified'' and ``special
circumstances'' standards have made it easy for OSHA to prevent
recovery under this broad standard, so attempts by small
business owners to recover costs often merely exacerbate the
financial harm caused by OSHA's dubious enforcement actions. On
May 18, 2004, the House passed the bill by a vote of 233-194,
with 16 Democrats voting for the measure.
The progress made during the 108th Congress helped lay the
groundwork for what is expected to be renewed action in the
109th Congress, as efforts to improve the health and safety
working conditions for American workers continue to be a top
priority for members of the Subcommittee on Workforce
Protections.
UPDATING OUTDATED LABOR LAWS TO GUARANTEE OVERTIME PROTECTIONS FOR
MILLIONS OF AMERICANS
Members of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections worked
closely with the Bush administration during the 108th Congress
to give overtime protections to millions of American workers in
danger of being denied overtime pay due to outdated federal
labor laws.
At the outset of the 108th Congress, federal regulations
implementing the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the federal
law guaranteeing overtime rights and other protections to
workers, had not been substantially changed in more than five
decades. As a result of these antiquated laws, Bush
administration officials argued, overtime pay could be unfairly
denied to someone earning as little as $8,060 a year.
On August 23, 2004, new U.S. Department of Labor rules were
put into effect by the Bush administration specifying that any
worker earning less than $23,660 annually is automatically
entitled to overtime pay. Under the final rule, thousands of
workers who previously were denied overtime rights immediately
became eligible for overtime pay. The Department's final rule
raised the previous $8,060 salary threshold almost threefold.
Some attempted to portray the new rules as an attack on
American workers, falsely claiming the rules would
``eliminate'' overtime pay for blue collar (low and middle-
income) workers and strip protections away from firefighters,
police, and workers in other key professions.
The attacks, however, were challenged by the Labor
Department, which noted the final overtime rule makes clear
that blue collar and union workers do not lose overtime,
clearly stating that ``blue collar'' workers are entitled to
overtime pay and that neither the FLSA nor the final rule
relieved an employer from its contractual obligations under a
collective bargaining agreement. The Labor Department also
noted the final rule strengthens overtime protections for
police officers, fire fighters, paramedics, EMTs, first
responders, and licensed practical nurses, ensuring that
workers in these occupations cannot lose their overtime rights.
The rule also clarifies that veterans do not risk losing
overtime, specifying that veteran status does not affect a
worker's overtime pay.
On June 10, 2003, Subcommittee Republicans led efforts in
the House to help defeat, by a vote of 213-210, an anti-worker
amendment designed to undercut the new overtime protections.
``The Labor Department's proposed regulations aim to expand
the pocketbooks of more working families, not trial lawyers,''
said Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John
Boehner (R-OH) during debate on the amendment. ``The only
people guaranteed protection under the amendment we rejected
would have been trial lawyers who will continue to work
overtime suing innocent employers.''
``The amendment was a brazen attempt to muddy the waters
and create further confusion as to who is eligible to receive
overtime and who is not,'' Subcommittee Chairman Charlie
Norwood (R-GA) said in a statement after the amendment was
defeated. ``Congress should not act to line the pockets of
trial lawyers at the expense of working families.''
At a hearing on April 28, 2004, U.S. Secretary of Labor
Elaine Chao testified before the Education and the Workforce
Committee regarding the proposed overtime rule changes.
``I'm pleased the Labor Department has worked hard to
address legitimate concerns raised by both workers and
employers,'' said Boehner at the hearing. ``Clearer rules will
reduce the cost of litigation, encourage employers to hire more
workers, and strengthen current law overtime protections for
American workers. This is especially important for the millions
of low-wage workers who will receive new overtime pay
protections under the final rule.''
Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee Chairman Sam
Johnson (R-TX) praised the Department for crafting the rule in
a manner that gives clear protections to veterans.
``Having fought in two wars myself, I was particularly
angered over the undue anxiety that was placed on those proud
veterans who have successfully transitioned into the civilian
workforce,'' Johnson said at the hearing. ``It is obvious that
critics scripted their opposition before even seeing the final
regulations.''
``The final rule successfully addresses the concerns that
have been raised and is much stronger as a result,'' testified
Secretary Chao. ``Under the rulemaking process, we have made
significant changes from the proposal and we believe the final
product is better in every way, and a significant improvement
over the old, confusing regulations that have not been updated
for decades.''
``In the course of issuing these regulations, a great deal
of misinformation has surrounded their impact. They have been
unfairly characterized as taking away overtime pay from
millions of Americans when the exact opposite is true,''
Secretary Chao told Committee members at the hearing. ``That is
why we took the extra step of spelling out in the regulations
who is not affected by the new rules. We want police officers,
fire fighters, paramedics, emergency medical technicians,
public safety employees and licensed practical nurses to know
that the new regulations will better protect their overtime
rights, not harm them.''
David Fortney, partner at the law firm Fortney & Scott,
told panel members at the April 28, 2004 hearing how current
vague regulations can result in unintentional noncompliance and
frivolous lawsuits.
``The significant increase in employment claims is a clear
indication that the current rules are not working. Why should
we have escalating claims when the rules have not changed?''
Fortney asked.
``In my experience, the explanation of these unacceptable
developments is simple--plaintiffs' lawyers have discovered
that the outdated regulations provide an excellent basis for
filing `gotcha' claims that primarily benefit the attorneys,''
added Fortney. ``Moreover, under the current outdated rules,
employers often are required to secure expensive legal guidance
on what is required to secure compliance, and even then the
best that typically can be provided is somewhat guarded advice.
As one of our clients once asked me, why should extensive good
faith compliance efforts have the same feel as spinning a
roulette wheel?''
At the hearing, Dr. Ronald E. Bird, chief economist at the
Employment Policy Foundation, described changes in the
workforce that had taken place over the last 60 to 70 years,
highlighting the need for modernizing the outdated regulations.
``In 1940, it was not uncommon for the typical worker to be
a high school dropout; over three-quarters of all adult workers
had never finished high school. Today, over 58 percent of the
population age 16 and older has at least some college-level
education,'' Bird testified. ``These changes have blurred the
definition of professional work as currently defined in the
regulations and make the classification of employees under the
regulations more complex. Given the dramatic changes in work
and the workforce, the Department of Labor was justified in
following a process to revise the white collar regulations.''
LETTING BUSY WORKING MOTHERS AND FATHERS CHOOSE MORE TIME WITH FAMILY
The need for greater workplace flexibility in a changing
economy was an important focus for the Workforce Protections
Subcommittee during the 108th Congress. The Subcommittee,
chaired by Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA), led efforts to
modernize outdated workforce laws and give parents more
flexibility to spend more time with their families.
Subcommittee members argued American workers, particularly
working mothers and fathers, should be able to choose to spend
more time with their families, as most public sector workers
are already allowed to do.
Through the hearing process, Subcommittee members learned
working men and women are finding it increasingly difficult to
balance family and work responsibilities, and unfortunately
their employers are hampered by an outdated federal law in
their attempts to accommodate worker requests for more family
time and flexible work schedules. While flexible work schedules
have been available to public sector workers for years, private
sector employees are denied these benefits because of an
outdated 1938 law that does not meet the needs of workers in
the modern economy.
To address this problem, Subcommittee Vice Chair Judy
Biggert (R-IL) introduced the Family Time Flexibility Act (H.R.
1119), legislation which sought to offer a workable solution to
the problem for both employers and workers attempting to
balance work and family responsibilities. Specifically, the
bill proposed allowing working men and women, through an
agreement with their employer, to choose paid time off as
compensation for working overtime hours.
This flexible working arrangement, known as ``compensatory
time,'' was designed to help working men and women achieve a
greater balance between family and work obligations.
Subcommittee members noted the proposal would remove obstacles
in federal law that prevent many employers from providing
hourly paid workers increased flexibility to spend time with
family, attend teacher conferences, care for an ill relative,
extend maternity and paternity leave, or accommodate other
family needs that may arise.
Biggert was joined by original cosponsors House Republican
Conference Chairman Deborah Pryce (R-OH), Rep. Jennifer Dunn
(R-WA), and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) at a press conference
to formally introduce the bill on March 6, 2003. The bipartisan
measure was supported by more than 100 cosponsors, including
Democratic Reps. William Lipinski (D-IL) and Charles Stenholm
(D-TX). The bill was also supported by the U.S. Department of
Labor.
``Today's working women face the challenge of balancing the
needs of family with the demands of work schedules,'' said
Biggert at the bill introduction press conference. ``For far
too many women, inflexible work schedules prevent them from
addressing family emergencies, attending teacher conferences,
and dealing with the many family needs that arise unexpectedly
throughout the course of a typical month or year. Family time
will provide a powerful new tool to help working women balance
the needs of their careers and families.''
``Good government should empower people to work together.
This bill makes families a priority by expanding compensation
options so Mom and Dad can be there for their kids,'' said
Committee member Marsha Blackburn at the press conference.
``Jobs in the 21st century are increasingly complex with fewer
men and women working 9 to 5 shifts, so our laws should reflect
how our lifestyles have changed.''
``Employees in the public sector have enjoyed the benefits
of `family time' for 15 years,'' U.S. Secretary of Labor Elaine
Chao said in support of the measure. ``The legislation
introduced will help all working people better balance the
obligations of their jobs and families.''
At a March 12, 2003 Workforce Protections Subcommittee
hearing, witnesses testified about the benefits of family time
flexibility that has been in use by public sector employees for
years, and how such benefits could be employed in the private
sector.
``As a working mother, it is very stressful to be at work
when your children are in someone else's care,'' testified Teri
Martell, an electrician at the Eastman Kodak Company. ``In
1993, if I had been allowed to save up some overtime hours, I
could have used that time during those emergencies. Just like
Kodak needs me during machine breakdowns, my family needs me
too, during healthcare breakdowns.''
At the hearing, Houston Williams, the CEO and Chairman of
PNS, Inc. in San Jose, California, described how his company
works hard to accommodate situations when parents must bring
their child to work because of school or day care issues that
may arise.
``While I work hard to accommodate these situations through
a flexible policy of allowing my employees to bring children to
work if necessary, passage of this bill would allow me to offer
these parents a better option--an opportunity to accumulate a
bank of paid time off that could be used for unexpected
emergencies like these,'' testified Williams. ``Given the
opportunity, I think many employees would choose to use paid
compensatory time for situations such as this rather than
bringing their children to work or taking unpaid time off.''
John Dantico, the managing principal and comptroller at
James & Scott Associates in Northbrook, Illinois called the
Fair Labor Standards Act a ``rigid Depression era law'' that
denies working men and women the opportunity to use more
flexible work schedules.
A benefits and human resources expert, Dantico told
Subcommittee members at the hearing the proposed bill was ``a
major step toward creating flexibility where it is absent, yet
where it is needed the most--in the workplace for the working
families of this nation.''
Subcommittee Chairman Norwood said one of the key features
of Biggert's family-friendly legislation was ``it gives each
employee the ability to make this choice for him or herself,
based on his or her own personal priorities--not those of the
federal government or a 1938 wage-and-hour law.''
On April 9, 2003, the Education and the Workforce Committee
approved the Family Time Flexibility Act. A disinformation
campaign launched by union bosses and lobbying groups against
the Biggert bill falsely asserted that the bill would permit
employers to force workers to accept time off in lieu of
overtime pay. Committee Chairman John Boehner (R-OH) condemned
the disinformation effort in 2003, calling it a ``campaign of
lies'' that was delaying the enactment of common-sense labor
law revisions at the expense of working parents.
In 2004, President Bush renewed calls for enactment of
``family time'' legislation, and the initiative is expected to
be revisited by Committee members during the 109th Congress.
ENSURING TIMELY DELIVERY OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION BENEFITS FOR ENERGY
EMPLOYEES
Education and the Workforce Committee Republicans during
the 108th Congress led efforts to ensure the timely delivery of
workers' compensation benefits under the Energy Employees
Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) to
energy employees for illnesses resulting from exposure to toxic
substances at Department of Energy facilities.
On October 9, 2004, the House and Senate overwhelmingly
approved legislation (included in H.R. 4200, the Department of
Defense Authorization conference report) to include these
reforms. President Bush signed the measure into law on October
28, 2004. As a result of the new law, the Labor Department will
now administer the new benefit program, which is intended to
provide a simple, fair, and uniform workers' compensation
system for energy workers.
The issue was the subject of an October 30, 2003 hearing
before the Workforce Protections Subcommittee--chaired by Rep.
Charlie Norwood (R-GA)--which examined the effectiveness of the
workers' compensation program.
``This program is important because it provides
compensation to Americans who suffer from illnesses as a result
of work performed in the production and testing of U.S. nuclear
weapons,'' said Norwood at the hearing.
There was a need to examine the ``effectiveness of the
Department of Labor's role in this workers' compensation
program, and whether the claims processing, communication, and
payment procedures for eligible employees has been sufficient
in meeting their needs and furthering the goal of this
program,'' Norwood said.
At the hearing, Shelby Hallmark, director of the Office of
Workers' Compensation Programs at the U.S. Department of Labor,
cited statistics on how the Labor Department has exceeded its
own internal performance goals for 2003 for reviewing and
processing claims.
``The program instituted an intensive accountability review
process to ensure that samples of case work are scrutinized by
objective reviewers, and where quality issues are identified in
these samples, to take strong and immediate corrective
action,'' Hallmark testified.
As of November 25, 2004, the Labor Department had received
60,368 claims, gave final approval for 14,901 claims, issued
final denials in 20,363 claims, and made compensation payments
of $953 million to 12,578 individuals.
PROMOTING WORKER SAFETY AND PRESERVING TRADITIONS IN RELIGIOUS
COMMUNITIES
During the 108th Congress, Subcommittee members led efforts
to successfully enact legislation to allow religious
communities to continue the traditional way of training their
children in a craft or occupation while ensuring the safety of
those who are employed in woodworking occupations. The reforms
were passed by Congress as part of the FY 2004 omnibus
appropriations bill. President Bush signed the measure into law
on January 23, 2004.
The enacted measure is similar to H.R. 1943, which was
introduced by Rep. Joseph Pitts (R-PA), and the subject of a
hearing before the Workforce Protections Subcommittee on
October 8, 2003.
Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA), chairman of the Subcommittee,
was a leader during the 108th Congress on efforts to enact new
protections for religious communities. During the October 8
hearing, Norwood said the Pitts bill would make sure ``youth
whose religious faith and beliefs dictate that they `learn by
doing' are afforded an opportunity to do so, and that the
federal government--however well-meaning--does not endanger the
belief and culture of these young people and their families.''
The new law creates a common-sense exception to the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) that ensures religious communities
can preserve their long-established way of raising and training
their children.
SUBCOMMITTEE EXAMINES KELLER BILL TO HELP RESTORE U.S. JOBS IN THE
RECREATIONAL BOATING INDUSTRY
In the 108th Congress, the Workforce Protections
Subcommittee examined the implications of the federal Longshore
Act and its impact on jobs in the U.S. boating industry. The
Subcommittee held a hearing on July 15, 2004, to examine
legislation proposed by Rep. Ric Keller (R-FL) that was
intended to restore U.S. jobs in the recreational boating
industry that have been lost to foreign competition overseas.
The measure--the Recreational Marine Employment Act (H.R.
1329)--was supported by 26 cosponsors, including five
Democrats.
Some estimates indicate one in five boat projects have
migrated from the U.S. to Canada because of the cost of
mandating duplicative insurance coverage, Subcommittee members
learned through the July 15 hearing. The additional insurance
requirements imposed by the Longshore Act on some U.S.
businesses puts them at a competitive disadvantage to Canadian
foreign competition and have cost jobs for American workers as
a result, members were told.
At the hearing, Keller described a meeting of constituents
in the recreational marine industry who came to his office.
``One built recreational boats. Another repaired
recreational boats. And a third ran a marina. They all had
something in common. All of them operated small, family-owned
businesses. All of them wanted to hire more employees, and
expand their businesses. And all of them had one problem,''
Keller said. ``That is, all of them were forced to pay
unnecessary and exorbitant insurance premiums under the
Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act.''
Congress in 1984 exempted employees in the recreational
boating industry, specifically boats 65 feet and under, from
the Longshore Act. Work performed on these boats is instead
covered under state workers' compensation laws. Over the past
20 years, Subcommittee members argued, there has been
tremendous growth in the number of recreational boats that
measure 65 feet or longer, so current law is outdated and
arbitrarily imposes additional requirements on some U.S.
businesses that puts them at a competitive disadvantage to
Canadian foreign competition.
``The practical impact of this limitation has been for
thousands of jobs to be lost to other countries because of the
increased cost of doing business here at home,'' said Workforce
Protections Subcommittee Vice Chair Judy Biggert (R-IL) at the
hearing.
``By switching to state workers' compensation coverage,
which is two to four times less expensive as Longshore
coverage, these small businesses would in many instances use
the savings to expand their businesses, expand their workforces
and update and enhance their production processes,'' testified
Larry Nelson, vice president of administration for Westport
Shipyard in Westport, Washington.
``Workers in the recreational boat building industry do not
face the dangers that longshoremen and stevedores face,''
testified Nelson, citing studies that show the safety
differences between recreational boat building and Longshore-
protected ship building. ``Rather, they face no greater risks
than those faced by other land-based workers in the
manufacturing industry. Further, the resources spent on
Longshore coverage could be better utilized by the small
businesses to strengthen their businesses and their
livelihood.''
``Due to the high costs of purchasing Longshore insurance
premiums, businesses like ours have experienced negative
consequences in competing for business,'' testified Kristina
Hebert, president of Ward's Marine Electric in Fort Lauderdale,
Florida. ``In the case of Florida, many boat owners are
choosing to have work done in the Bahamas and Caribbean.''
Hebert said one of the main reasons costs are lower is
``employers there do not have to pay the extremely high cost of
Longshore coverage and can therefore outbid American
businesses.''
Hebert testified that ``employers like Ward's Marine
Electric would save approximately $200,000 a year by not having
to purchase the unnecessary and duplicative Longshore
insurance'' and agreed with other witnesses this money could
``instead be used to expand our services, increase our
employees' wages, and hire more skilled workers.''
Ian Greenway, president of LIG Marine Managers, a provider
of commercial marine insurance, used the hearing to dispute the
notion there was an increased safety risk for boats greater
than 65 feet in length that justified the exorbitant expense of
Longshore coverage.
``There is no difference in the risks associated with
repairing the plumbing, air conditioning or radio on a 75-foot
recreational boat as compared to a 65-foot recreational boat,''
Greenway testified. ``In fact, current insurance data
demonstrates that claims for these larger vessels are
significantly lower. Claims for workers on vessels of 65-150
feet are at least 38 percent lower than those on vessels under
65 feet. We see not only fewer injuries but also fewer serious
injuries in larger recreational boats than we do in their
smaller counterparts.''
The proposed Keller bill would ``provide an economic boost
to employers, allowing them to expand their operations and hire
new employees, all while leaving the traditional Longshore
employees unaffected,'' Greenway concluded.
The facts garnered by the Subcommittee during the 108th
Congress could serve as the basis for future action to move the
proposal forward in the 109th Congress and help restore,
preserve, and boost U.S. job growth in the recreational boating
industry.
SUBCOMMITTEE EXAMINES EFFECTIVENESS OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION
ACT
During the 108th Congress, the Workforce Protections
Subcommittee examined the Federal Employees' Compensation Act
(FECA), the federal program administered by the Department of
Labor that provides benefits to federal employees injured in
the course of their work for the government.
Witnesses at a May 13, 2004 Subcommittee hearing assessed
the overall effectiveness of the workers' compensation program
and also examined whether claims processing, communication, and
payment disbursements were meeting the needs of injured federal
workers and the overall goals of the program.
``The Subcommittee continues to hear complaints from
claimants, medical providers and other Congressional offices
about the difficulty in communicating with the Office of
Workers' Compensation Programs, which administers FECA,'' said
Subcommittee Chairman Charlie Norwood (R-GA) at the hearing.
``One of my colleagues from Texas recently forwarded a
letter to me from a constituent who is a physician with
experience in treating injured federal workers,'' Norwood
detailed. ``The physician points out that he has now stopped
seeing new patients with federal workers' compensation claims,
as have many of his colleagues, because of the repeated delays
and denials for surgery requests. In his experience, the
typical delays for surgery approvals run anywhere from six
months to a full year.''
``These kinds of delays can impact the entire system by
significantly increasing the amount of time that workers remain
off the job,'' added Norwood. ``While I know that the agency
receives and processes a vast amount of mail, medical bills and
phone calls each year, the program must continue to improve its
performance in these areas to benefit workers who need these
critical services.''
The 88-year old FECA program covers some three million
federal workers and provides a variety of benefits for
employees injured in the performance of their duties, including
payments for medical care, wage-loss compensation for total or
partial disability, schedule awards for certain injuries, and
assistance in returning to work, including vocational
rehabilitation.
Subcommittee members noted FECA also provides benefits to
the survivors of federal employees who die in the performance
of their work for the federal government. In FY 2003, the
program paid more than $2.3 billion in benefits to
approximately 280,000 individuals.
Committee member Rep. Jim Greenwood (R-PA) said during the
hearing Congress needed to learn more about the FECA program to
ensure injured federal employees are provided with timely
workers' compensation benefits.
``I hope that this hearing today will provide us with a
foundation of understanding,'' Greenwood said. ``It is critical
that we learn how this important program operates and its
overall effectiveness on behalf of workers. We want to build on
the program's successes and correct weaknesses.''
Witnesses before the Subcommittee provided members with
information about the program, highlighted the objectives of a
workers' compensation system and the role government should
play in the system, and suggested areas of improvement that
would benefit claimants and taxpayers.
Shelby Hallmark, director of the Office of Workers'
Compensation Programs (OWCP), told Subcommittee members the
agency has ``made major progress, but we still have major
challenges, especially in achieving appropriate return-to-work
outcomes.''
Hallmark highlighted the importance of strengthening return
to work initiatives such as President Bush's Safety, Health and
Return-to-Employment (SHARE) program, which was introduced in
January 2004. The program ``directs federal agencies to set
goals and track results in four areas: lowering workplace
injury and illness case rates; lowering lost-time injury and
illness case rates; reporting injuries and illnesses in timely
fashion; and reducing days lost from work injuries and
illnesses,'' he said.
Elliot Lewis, assistant inspector general for audit at the
Labor Department, explained the importance of effective
management of the FECA program.
``The FECA program affects the budgets of all federal
agencies, and quasi-federal agencies such as the Postal
Service. Effective management of the FECA program works to the
benefit of every claimant, federal agency and taxpayer,''
testified Lewis.
At the hearing, Lewis highlighted a number of continuing
problems, however, including an audit which found ``the lack of
current medical evidence in 18 percent of sampled cases, which
appeared to be due to OWCP's failure to comply with its own
procedures rather than a lack of responsiveness on the part of
the claimant.''
Lewis also said the inspector general's office had ``made
recommendations to OWCP for improvement in the areas of
customer service and program integrity and OWCP has recognized
the need to implement changes in response to our concerns.''
Allan Hunt, the executive director for employment research
at the Upjohn Institute in Kalamazoo, Michigan, who has studied
the FECA program, testified that there was room for improvement
in administering the program but also highlighted some areas of
program success.
He said OWCP had developed a ``loss production days
performance measure'' that had helped the agency ``minimize
work time lost to occupational injury and illness.'' As a
result, Hunt said OWCP had been able to drive the ``lost
production day rate down by one-third in the past decade.''
This oversight hearing helped lay the groundwork for future
efforts in the 109th Congress to examine possible reforms to
FECA programs that assist employees in returning to work.
II. Hearings Held by the Subcommittee
108th Congress, First Session
March 12, 2003--Hearing on H.R. 1119, ``Family Time
Flexibility Act'' (108-7)
June 17, 2003--Hearing on H.R. 1583, ``Occupational Safety
and Health Fairness Act of 2003; Small Business and Workplace
Safety'' (108-20)
September 17, 2003--Hearing on ``H.R. 2731, Occupational
Safety and Health Small Employer Access to Justice Act of
2003'' (108-31)
October 8, 2003--Hearing on ``H.R. 1943, Legislation
Amending the Fair Labor Standards Act to Permit Certain Youth
to Perform Certain Specified Work'' (108-37)
October 30, 2003--Hearing on ``Energy Employees Workers''
Compensation: Examining the Department of Labor's Role in
Helping Workers with Energy-Related Occupational Illnesses and
Diseases'' (108-41)
108th Congress, Second Session
May 13, 2004--Hearing on ``Examining the Federal
Employees'' Compensation Act and Its Benefits for Workers''
(108-59)
July 15, 2004--Hearing on ``H.R. 1329, Recreational Marine
Employment Act of 2003'' (108-69)
III. Markups Held by the Subcommittee
108th Congress, First Session
April 3, 2003--H.R. 1119, Family Time Flexibility Act was
ordered favorably reported to the Full Committee by a vote of
8-6.
July 24, 2003--H.R. 2728, Occupational Safety and Health
Small Business Day in Court Act of 2003 was ordered favorably
reported to the Full committee by voice vote. H.R. 2729,
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Efficiency Act
of 2003 was ordered favorably reported to the Full committee by
a vote of 7-6. H.R. 2730, Occupational Safety and Health
Independent Review of OSHA Citations Act of 2003 was ordered
favorably reported to the Full committee by a vote of 7-6.
IV. Subcommittee Statistics
Total Number of Bills and Resolutions Referred to Subcommittee.... 88
Total Number of Hearings.......................................... 7
Field......................................................... 0
Joint With Other Committees................................... 0
Total Number of Subcommittee Markup Sessions...................... 2
Total Number of Bills Reported From Subcommittee.................. 4
SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS
I. Summary of Activities
In the 108th Congress, the Subcommittee on 21st Century
Competitiveness undertook a bold agenda for education and job
training reform, holding no fewer than 14 hearings and moving
forward with numerous pieces of legislation to help bolster
American competitiveness and encourage constant improvement in
education.
The panel's legislative focus throughout the 108th Congress
was particularly consistent with testimony given before the
full Committee on March 11, 2004 by Federal Reserve Board
Chairman Alan Greenspan. During the March 11 hearing, Greenspan
said strengthening education and worker training systems and
supporting innovation are essential to creating jobs and
sustained economic growth for American families.
The Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness, chaired
in the 108th Congress by Rep. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon (R-CA),
has jurisdiction over the Higher Education Act, America's job
training system under the Workforce Investment Act, welfare
reform legislation, and many other federal laws that play a
vital role in helping to equip Americans with the tools to
compete and prosper in the 21st Century economy.
A major focus of the 21st Century Competitiveness
Subcommittee during the 108th Congress was reauthorization of
the Higher Education Act (HEA), the primary federal law
overseeing postsecondary education and student financial
assistance. At the outset of the 108th Congress, Education and
the Workforce Committee Chairman John Boehner (R-OH),
Subcommittee Chairman McKeon and others noted with concern that
federal higher education spending has been soaring, reaching
nearly $100 billion annually. They vowed to give students,
parents, and taxpayers new tools to enable them to know what
they're getting in exchange for that investment.
The Subcommittee held numerous hearings on topics under the
HEA, ranging from how Americans must confront the college cost
crisis to whether non-traditional colleges and universities are
treated fairly to whether taxpayers are vulnerable to bogus
institutions known as ``diploma mills.'' Subcommittee members,
led by Chairman McKeon, took a bold stand against the
hyperinflation of college costs, noting that the high cost of
college is pricing millions of low and middle-income students
out of the dream of a higher education.
Job training was also a priority for the Subcommittee in
the 108th Congress. On May 8, 2003, the House approved the
Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act (H.R. 1261).
That bill, introduced by Boehner and McKeon, sought to
strengthen job training and workforce development programs
under the 1998 Workforce Investment Act (WIA). The bill
proposed removing barriers to religious and faith-based
organizations seeking to participate in the job training
programs. It also sought to give governors and local
communities new tools to use federal WIA resources to meet the
needs of Americans seeking jobs and job training.
The Subcommittee also successfully led the way in the House
for creation of Personal Reemployment Accounts (PRAs), an
innovative job training tool proposed by President Bush during
the economic recovery effort for American workers struggling to
find good new jobs. Rep. John Porter (R-NV) introduced
legislation to create the accounts, and the House passed a
Porter-authored bill to establish them in 2004. Later in 2004,
the U.S. Department of Labor adopted a PRA pilot project that
provides the accounts to workers in a limited number of states,
laying the groundwork for future expansions of PRAs for workers
in the 109th Congress.
Following are more comprehensive details of the activities
of the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness in the
108th Congress (January 2003--December 2004).
EFFORTS TO EXPAND COLLEGE ACCESS FOR LOW AND MIDDLE-INCOME STUDENTS
A longtime leader in higher education policy, and
particularly in confronting the troubling trend of rapidly
rising college costs that harm students and families, 21st
Century Competitiveness Subcommittee Chairman Howard P.
``Buck'' McKeon (R-CA) led a groundbreaking effort during the
108th Congress to address America's college cost crisis and
reform federal higher education programs to expand college
access for low and middle-income students.
The College Cost Crisis
The issue of skyrocketing tuition costs at colleges and
universities across America played a prominent role in the
Subcommittee's efforts to reform the Higher Education Act
(HEA), the nation's primary federal higher education law.
Chairman McKeon convened several hearings on issues of
affordability in higher education, held a roundtable discussion
with higher education stakeholders, and authored a report,
``The College Cost Crisis,'' with Committee Chairman John
Boehner (R-OH) to further examine the issue. The College Cost
Crisis report is discussed in greater detail in the Full
Committee activities section of this report.
On July 10, 2003, the Subcommittee heard testimony from
leaders in college affordability from several colleges and
universities. Witnesses discussed successful efforts to rein in
skyrocketing college cost increases without sacrificing program
quality, and explored how these solutions could translate on a
national scale to help ensure low-income students are not
prevented from receiving a college education simply because of
the hyperinflation of college costs.
``According to the Advisory Committee on Student Financial
Assistance, cost factors prevent 48 percent of all college-
qualified, low-income high-school graduates from attending a
four-year college and 22 percent from pursuing any college at
all,'' said McKeon at the hearing. ``At the rate we are going,
by the end of the decade, more than two million college-
qualified students will miss out on the opportunity to go to
college.''
``As college prices have continued to rise, the federal
government has repeatedly increased financial support for
higher education. In the four years since the last
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, federal student
aid has grown by more than $23 billion,'' saidMcKeon. ``Last
year, Congress also raised the maximum Pell grant to $4,050 a year.
Student loan interest rates are at their lowest levels in the program's
38-year history.''
Despite the financial commitment made by the federal
government, which in 2003 invested roughly $90 to $100 billion
in higher education, college cost increases continue to price a
significant number of students out of the college market,
McKeon noted at the hearing. The hearing featured testimony
from witnesses representing institutions that had recently
bucked the national trend and actually lowered or limited
tuition increases for students and parents.
Dr. Patrick Kirby, dean of enrollment services at
Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, discussed how his
University had successfully managed to not only keep costs from
rising too rapidly, but actually managed to lower its tuition
in an effort to attract and retain more students.
``Your Subcommittee has identified one of the greatest
issues facing many college students and their families today,
and, in turn, colleges and universities. The ramifications of
ever-increasing costs for higher education are certainly far-
reaching and multi-layered,'' said Kirby. ``It is my hope that
our recent experience with a successful tuition reduction plan
at Westminster will serve this Subcommittee as a helpful case
study of one possible path toward the types of solutions you
are seeking.''
``In the past decade, Westminster, like many private
colleges, has struggled with the same issues on which your
Subcommittee is now focused. If we could make our college more
affordable, could we enroll more students and simultaneously
provide more choices to these students who are seeking a post
secondary education? We felt strongly that if we addressed and
solved the affordability issue, we could accomplish these over-
arching goals and likewise reap positive benefits for the
College,'' said Kirby.
The Wisconsin Association of Independent Colleges and
Universities (WAICU) had undertaken a similar effort to make
institutional, and even state-wide, improvements in cost-
effectiveness to address head-on the cost increases facing
their institutions. Dr. Rolf Wegenke, President of WAICU,
described his experiences with the WAICU Collaboration Project,
an effort by the WAICU member institutions in the state of
Wisconsin to control costs while maintaining program quality.
``The WAICU Collaboration Project is a comprehensive
initiative to perform all administrative support (back office)
functions of Wisconsin's 20 private colleges and universities
on a collaborative basis. The objectives are to save money, to
improve the quality of services to students, faculty, and
staff, and to serve as a national model for controlling college
costs. This project moves beyond incrementalism. Never before
in history have private colleges and universities considered as
extensive a consolidation of functions short of an actual
merger. It sends a message to the entire nation that something
transformative has taken place,'' said Wegenke.
``If we price some of our best and brightest out of the
game before the game even starts, there is no way that we as a
nation, and as a people can remain competitive in the future.
We live in the greatest nation on earth, we are afforded all of
the freedom and opportunity that any person could want or
desire, but to remain strong, we must continue to build upon
our children,'' testified Scott Ross, executive director of the
Florida Student Association.
``I believe that it is time that we--the federal
government, states, institutions of higher education, the
lending community, parents and students--all take our role in
addressing this crisis seriously,'' said McKeon, concluding the
hearing. ``We know that there is a problem. Today, we begin to
find solutions.''
As discussed earlier, the report ``The College Cost
Crisis,'' released by McKeon and Boehner on September 4, 2003
continued to propel the national discussion on the problem of
skyrocketing college costs. On September 23, 2003, the 21st
Century Competitiveness Subcommittee held a hearing on the
report.
Exploding college prices are not just the result of state
budget cuts in higher education programs, and American colleges
and universities can do more to control costs, witnesses told
members of the Subcommittee at the September 23 hearing. The
testimony echoed a major finding of ``The College Cost Crisis''
report: the conclusion that decades of steep tuition increases
are pricing low and middle income students out of the college
market.
``Universities need to be more conservative in how their
money is spent,'' testified Jessica Hanson, a student at
Florida State University, noting that many colleges have
increased tuition dramatically even in times when the economy
has been thriving.
``We must hold our university administrations accountable
and ensure that they do not engage in wasteful spending; we
must ensure that it is no longer an option to balance their
budgets on the backs of students,'' Hanson told legislators.
``As a student at Florida State University, I have received an
outstanding education both inside and outside the classroom. I
sit here today in front of this committee asking you to ensure
that the future of our country, the students of tomorrow have
the same opportunities.''
McKeon urged fellow legislators to hear the concerns being
expressed by students such as Hanson and vowed the panel would
move forward in its effort to respond to the college cost
crisis.
``The consumers of higher education--students and parents--
are losing patience,'' McKeon said. ``Parents are scared that
they may not be able to send their children to college.
Students dread the day when their student loans will come
due.''
McKeon read an excerpt from a letter sent by a South
Carolina college student concerned about the fact that the
university she attends appeared to be spending millions of
dollars on construction projects and cosmetic improvements to
campus, yet she was unable to get into the classes she needed
in order to graduate.
``Attending a university is not about how nice the dining
facilities are or having as many different chic eating places
as possible; it is about learning and preparing for our
careers,'' the student wrote.
``The concern about rising prices is a legitimate one for
students and families, especially those from low income
backgrounds,'' testified Jamie Merisotis, president of the
Institute for Higher Education Policy, commenting on the
Boehner-McKeon report. ``I don't think it is sufficient to
explain away these concerns as simple hand-wringing among
consumers.''
One contributing factor to the college cost crisis,
Merisotis suggested, is simply that many institutions of higher
learning have not implemented the kinds of financial planning
measures commonly used in other sectors.
``While many institutions now conduct sophisticated
enrollment projections to match overall plans for program
development and improvement, few take the next step and link
such planning to the likely financial conditions they will
face,'' Merisotis noted in his prepared testimony. ``It may
make more sense for a school to develop different revenue
scenarios first, and then match those with the different
strategic goals for the institution.''
``Few [institutions] develop academic plans with any
serious consideration of the likely sources and amounts of
revenue needed to support those plans,'' Merisotis stated.
Following the hearing, McKeon invited leaders from across
the higher education spectrum to participate in a roundtable
discussion on the college cost crisis. That roundtable, held on
October 2, 2003, brought together representatives of both two-
and four-year, public, private, and proprietary colleges and
universities, as well as representatives of parents and
students.
``I am grateful that my colleagues and friends from the
higher education community were able to come together for this
frank and constructive discussion about the college cost
crisis. This forum allowed me to hear from many different
perspectives on the cost issue and reinforced my belief that it
is incumbent on all of us--the federal government, states,
institutions of higher education, the lending community,
parents and students--to take our roles in addressing this
crisis seriously,'' said McKeon.
``I believe this is a great idea to have this discussion
today,'' said Jim Boyle, president of College Parents of
America. The cost of higher education is a major concern for
parents, according to Boyle, who applauded McKeon for his
interest in the topic.
``We very much agree with your assessment'' that there is a
crisis of college costs, stated Scott Sudduth with the
University of California, discussing the findings of ``The
College Cost Crisis'' report.
``Higher education has not done a very good job of
explaining what it's doing to control costs,'' acknowledged Dr.
William Kirwan, Chancellor of the University System of
Maryland.
Everyone in the discussion concurred with that point, and
there was widespread agreement that the consumers of higher
education--parents and students--need access to more easily
understandable information in order to make informed decisions
in the college marketplace.
Reps. Johnny Isakson (R-GA) and Max Burns (R-GA), both
members of the Education and the Workforce Committee, urged
institutions to think outside of the box and questioned whether
the time has come for higher education to adopt a new
``business model'' that reflects the changing needs of students
in the 21st Century.
Institutions would do better to begin thinking more like
businesses and less like government, noted Rep. John Carter (R-
TX). Carter also questioned what seemed to be an endless
pattern of cost increases leading to federal financial aid
increases, and a feeling that however large the federal
investment in higher education may be, it will never be enough
for some.
The group overwhelmingly agreed that increasing
transparency and making more information available to parents,
students, and taxpayers would be an important first step in the
right direction.
``Our industry did not respond well to recommendations five
years ago'' that would have increased transparency in college
costs, said Sudduth. ``An informed consumer is what we're
lacking here.''
The recommendation to increase sunshine and transparency in
college costs--and throughout higher education--to better
inform parents and students was a major component of a bill
introduced in 2004 by McKeon and Boehner to reauthorize the
Higher Education Act. That bill, the College Access and
Opportunity Act (H.R. 4283), is discussed in greater detail in
the Full Committee activities section of this report.
Expanding College Access for Low and Middle-Income Students
As the 21st Century Competitiveness Subcommittee continued
its information-gathering efforts in preparation for the
introduction of legislation to strengthen and renew the Higher
Education Act, a major theme emerged: the need to expand
college access for low and middle-income students. As Committee
leaders had hoped from the outset, this principle was
ultimately applied throughout the reauthorization process, from
proposals to improve college access programs and support non-
traditional and minority serving institutions, to plans that
would address the college cost crisis and realign the multi-
billion dollar federal investment to restore the focus on
current and future students.
On July 15, 2003, the 21st Century Competitiveness
Subcommittee heard testimony on how higher education programs
can expand access to college for low-income or non-traditional
students who often believe college is out of reach. The panel
heard from witnesses on initiatives that can expand
opportunities, reach out to students who may not otherwise have
access to higher education, and encourage students with the
premise that college is possible.
``When the Higher Education Act was authorized in 1965,
Congress made a fundamental commitment to ensure that every
student who desired to pursue a higher education was afforded
the opportunity,'' said Subcommittee Chairman McKeon. ``With
the creation of the Pell Grant program, government-backed
student loans, and access programs like TRIO, the Higher
Education Act now authorizes multiple programs for low-income,
first generation college students in order to provide them the
necessary assistance to allow postsecondary education to be a
realistic goal. Over the last three decades, our nation has
made great strides to ensure that millions of eligible students
can access a postsecondary education.''
An important component of expanding access is to embrace
the role of alternatives to the traditional four-year
institution, such as community colleges or proprietary schools,
Committee members noted. These programs provide an important
gateway into higher education for many students who would
typically not enroll in a four-year institution.
In addition to exploring college access initiatives, the
Subcommittee also looked into the federal student aid programs
and how they could do a better job of expanding access to
current and future low and middle-income students--those who
were meant to be the number one priority of federal student aid
programs when the Higher Education Act was originally written.
On July 22, 2003, the Subcommittee held a hearing to
specifically examine the pros and cons of the consolidation
loan program, which allows former college students to
consolidate their federal student loans with a subsidy drawn
from the limited pool of federal resources devoted to higher
education.
``When the Higher Education Act was authorized in 1965, its
intention was to expand access and provide opportunities to
low-income students. Yet today, I believe some higher education
programs have lost sight of that original mission--and the
crisis of skyrocketing college costs makes it more important
than ever to ensure that higher education programs are reaching
their full potential to expand access to higher education in
America,'' said Rep. McKeon.
The consolidation loan program was implemented as part of
the 1986 HEA reauthorization. The intent of the consolidation
program was to provide an opportunity for borrowers with
multiple loan holders and a high debt level to consolidate that
debt with one holder and allow for a single monthly payment.
However, Subcommittee members learned, with recent interest
rate drops, the number and volume of consolidation loans has
increased dramatically in the last few years, and as a result,
an ever-increasing amount of the federal subsidy for higher
education is directed toward college graduates who have already
achieved their educational goals.
The reauthorization of the Higher Education Act provides
Congress with an opportunity to thoroughly evaluate, and if
necessary realign, the $90 to $100 billion annual federal
investment in higher education to more directly meet its
purpose of expanding access and opportunities for low-income
students striving to achieve the dream of a college education,
noted McKeon at the hearing.
During the autumn of 2003, the independent Government
Accountability Office (GAO) issued a major report confirming
many of the conclusions reached by legislators at the
Subcommittee hearing earlier in the year. The report called on
Congress to consider changing the consolidation loan program
from a fixed interest rate structure to a variable interest
rate structure. Doing so would prevent the cost of the program
from ballooning in upcoming years and becoming an even larger
drain on the pool of federal higher education resources meant
for incoming, low and middle-income students who had not yet
received an education.
In May 2004, McKeon joined Boehner in introducing the
College Access and Opportunity Act (H.R. 4283), a bill that
proposed moving all future consolidation loans to the current
variable interest rate that has resulted in the lowest interest
rates for students in the history of the federal student loan
programs. Moving to a variable interest rate on consolidation
loans, as Boehner and McKeon proposed, would ensure all
borrowers are treated fairly, and would prevent ballooning
subsidy costs within the consolidation loan program from
restricting efforts to expand access for current and future
students.
While the student loan programs were an important focus of
HEA reform efforts, they were not the only area in which
Subcommittee members pursued significant changes. Rep. Tom Cole
(R-OK) introduced legislation in September 2003 to expand
access for students by breaking down barriers, eliminating
outdated regulations, strengthening minority serving
institutions, and simplifying federal student aid programs for
needy students and families. That bill, the Expanding
Opportunities in Higher Education Act (H.R. 3039) was later
included as a part of H.R. 4283, the comprehensive HEA
reauthorization bill.
Cole's H.R. 3039 called for several improvements to current
law to not only assist students, but also encourage fair
treatment of institutions and allow the institutions to better
meet the changing needs of the students they serve. Following
is a brief summary of some of the reforms included in Cole's
Expanding Opportunities in Higher Education Act.
Removing barriers and encouraging innovation: The
Expanding Opportunities in Higher Education Act proposed
removing outdated regulations arbitrarily applied to some
institutions and not others, and eliminating barriers to
innovative educational opportunities such as distance
education. These reforms aimed to provide institutions of
higher education with the freedom to provide better services
and expand access for students.
Meeting the needs of Minority Serving
Institutions: Because Minority Serving Institutions, such as
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and
Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs), play such a vital role in
opening the doors of higher education, the bill proposed
additional flexibility and a reduction in unnecessary
restrictions. The bill also proposed extending the allowable
use of funds to further assist them in serving their students.
The legislation called for several improvements for Minority
Serving Institutions (MSIs), including allowing MSIs to use
funds to develop or improve their facilities for Internet use
or other distance learning capabilities.
Supporting the programs that support students: For
many low-income, non-traditional or first-generation college
students, postsecondary education is a daunting prospect.
Programs such as TRIO and GEAR UP, which provide support
services and resources for these students and their families,
make a real difference in making the dream of college a
reality. H.R. 3039 recognized the value of such programs, and
called for increased flexibility and freedom to better serve
the unique needs of students participating in these programs.
Simplifying federal student aid to help students
and families: The federal student aid system, which provides
tens of billions of dollars in direct financial aid to students
each year, is supposed to break down barriers for students; not
create them. Yet the need analysis formula, the core of all
federal student aid, is unnecessarily complex and cumbersome.
For some families, simply applying for student aid presents a
challenge. The Expanding Opportunities in Higher Education Act
included a proposal offered earlier in 2003 by Reps. McKeon and
Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) to commission a study to examine the
federal financial aid formula and forms in order to simplify
and streamline the programs to make the student aid system more
friendly and responsive to student needs.
On September 11, 2003, witnesses before the Subcommittee
explored how the Expanding Opportunities in Higher Education
Act sought to strengthen higher education by removing outdated
barriers and expanding opportunities for students.
A primary purpose of H.R. 3039, McKeon noted, was to ensure
institutions seeking to serve students, and particularly needy
or non-traditional students, would be treated fairly and
equitably under the Higher Education Act. For that reason, the
bill sought to remove arbitrary distinctions in current law
that are applied to different types of institutions, and
proposed more evenhanded treatment of all schools as they
assist students in reaching their educational goals.
The bill also called for greater encouragement of
innovation as a way to help students as they work toward
postsecondary education, McKeon pointed out. In that spirit,
the bill would have removed outdated restrictions on distance
education, which prevent institutions from making the most of
online learning opportunities. Particularly for the non-
traditional student population, distance education offers
students both flexibility and freedom, noted witnesses.
H.R. 3039 also placed a strong emphasis on assisting
minority serving institutions, calling for the flexibility and
freedom these institutions have requested to better serve their
students, McKeon noted. The proposed reforms complemented the
significant funding increases being provided to minority
serving schools under President Bush, McKeon said.
Dr. Antonio Flores, president and CEO of the Hispanic
Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU), expressed his
organization's support for H.R. 3039.
``Chairman McKeon and distinguished members of this House
Subcommittee, I applaud your commitment to the enhancement of
HSIs and Hispanic higher education. Your championing of this
national priority clearly demonstrates foresight and wisdom
because the very future of our nation hangs in the balance,''
Flores declared in testimony submitted to the Subcommittee.
H.R. 3039, McKeon noted, included multiple reforms for
minority serving institutions, with two particularly important
provisions targeted toward Hispanic Serving Institutions. The
bill proposed removing a two-year wait out period between
grants, which would allow institutions to continue to receive
federal grants without interruption as they serve students. In
addition, the bill sought to simplify an outdated eligibility
requirement that has been difficult for HSIs to navigate as
they seek to participate in HEA programs.
Helping Parents and Students Hold Colleges and Universities Accountable
American higher education suffers from a lack of
accountability when it comes to providing students and parents
with access to information, witnesses told the 21st Century
Competitiveness Subcommittee on June 22, 2004. Witnesses
praised provisions of the Republican college access bill, the
College Access and Opportunity Act (H.R. 4283), that sought to
increase sunshine and transparency in the accreditation process
to empower students, parents, and taxpayers with more
information about what they're getting in exchange for their
multi-billion dollar annual investment in higher education.
``[T]he accreditation system serves as the central
component in the federal government's effort to hold
institutions accountable. It is widely credited as an
invaluable tool for measuring institutional quality without
undue federal control and federal pressure,'' said Subcommittee
Chairman McKeon. ``At the same time, we also have to recognize
that the accreditation system is not perfect. While it may be a
`uniquely American institution,' it is also one that--all too
often--perpetuates the status quo on campuses.''
``Even with the additional requirement made in 1998 that
accreditors begin to focus on student outcomes, the system and
the institutions they accredit could be more effective when it
comes to measuring academic quality,'' McKeon said, noting more
than half of U.S. students do not graduate in four years. ``Low
graduation rates may be compounded by the fact that parents and
students lack the necessary information to determine whether a
particular college or university is a quality institution or
appear to meet the needs of that particular student.''
Witnesses examined the current accreditation system and
described how a lack of transparency, coupled with a
questionable track record of measuring quality and student
outcomes, has resulted in a higher education system that is
largely unaccountable to the public.
``In theory, the accreditors should be the guardians of
academic quality. In reality, it has taken enormous external
pressure, including explicit Congressional directives, to
persuade accreditors to address more directly issues of
educational quality and student learning,'' said Dr. Jerry
Martin, chairman of the American Council of Trustees and
Alumni.
Martin also discussed the need to provide consumers--
students, parents, and taxpayers--access to more information
about colleges and universities, and about the accreditation
process itself. The College Access and Opportunity Act proposed
opening up the accreditation process,and empowering consumers
through the creation of a College Consumer Profile. The College
Consumer Profile would provide consumers understandable, comparable,
and easily accessible information about colleges and universities.
``I believe that the American higher education system is
the best in the world. But, I believe that we can still
improve,'' McKeon concluded. ``As Congress continues the
process of renewing and reauthorizing the Higher Education Act
and builds on efforts to bridge the educational divide for
America's low and middle-income students, it is important for
us to continue this dialogue and continue our work on
evaluating ways to improve the accreditation system and build
on the academic excellence of students.''
PROTECTING TAXPAYERS AGAINST DIPLOMA MILLS
Federal tax dollars may be vulnerable to abuse by higher
education scams providing phony postsecondary degrees--known as
diploma mills--despite safeguards that have been put into
place, witnesses told the Subcommittee on 21st Century
Competitiveness in a hearing held September 23, 2004. The
hearing uncovered examples of federal agencies or grantees
using taxpayer dollars to either purchase the bogus degrees, or
employ high-level individuals who hold the worthless
credentials.
``Diploma mills harm students, taxpayers, and both federal
and state governments. They mislead consumers and employers and
pose dangers to legitimate institutions of higher education,''
said Subcommittee Chairman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon (R-CA).
``Reliance on phony degrees is not a victimless crime,''
continued McKeon. ``Take the disturbing story of an individual
claiming to be a physician in North Carolina who treated an 8-
year old girl for complications with diabetes. The girl's
mother trusted the `doctor' based on his MD degree, and took
her daughter off of insulin, as instructed. Sadly, her daughter
died. The physician? He earned his `degrees' from bogus
institutions; all of his diplomas came from diploma mills.''
Retired FBI agent Allen Ezell testified on his involvement
with Operation Diploma Scam (DIPSCAM), a series of
investigations held from 1980-1991 to crack down on
illegitimate higher education institutions selling phony
degrees. In that time, Ezell and the taskforce executed 16
federal search warrants, obtained 19 federal grand jury
indictments, and convicted 21 individuals. Agent Ezell
purchased 10 Bachelor, 19 Masters, four Ph.D., and two M.D.
degrees from these so-called diploma mills.
``Degree mills are well over a $500 million dollar a year
business,'' said Ezell. ``Most probably, over one million
Americans have purchased (and probably use) fictitious
credentials.''
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted a
number of investigations into diploma mills, specifically
examining whether federal employees hold these faulty
credentials, and whether they were paid for at government
expense, according to GAO testimony offered at the hearing. GAO
investigations into eight federal agencies and at least four
reputed diploma mills resulted in significant findings of
federal employees holding degrees from these institutions.
Three of the supposed diploma mills reported 463 of their
students were federal employees, and a total of $169,470.74 in
federal payments was found to have been made to two of these
schools.
A Senate Governmental Affairs Committee investigation
earlier in 2004 revealed federal Head Start grant funds
intended for early childhood education programs had been used
to purchase phony degrees from a diploma mill. It is not
illegal at the present time for Head Start employees to use
federal Head Start training funds to acquire a degree from a
non-accredited school or diploma mill, Committee members noted.
As the Education and the Workforce Committee continues to
oversee federal education programs, steps will be taken to
protect taxpayers from diploma mills and the worthless
credentials they provide, Committee members declared at the
hearing.
QUESTIONING THE HIGH COST OF COLLEGE TEXTBOOKS
As members of the 21st Century Competitiveness Subcommittee
fought to pass legislation in 2004 to help American students
and families fight back against skyrocketing college costs, the
increasing price of college textbooks drew scrutiny on Capitol
Hill.
On July 20, 2004, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the
topic of textbook costs. College students and families were
invited to submit testimony for the record or provide input on
how the price of textbooks impacts the cost of college. The
hearing determined that the high price of textbooks is a
significant contributor to escalating college costs for
students. It also determined, however, that costs for students
could be reduced through options such as online texts, textbook
rental programs, or other methods of reducing the textbook cost
burden.
In January of 2004, the California Student Public Interest
Research Group or CALPIRG released the report, ``RIPOFF 101--
How the Current Practices of the Textbook Industry Drive Up the
Cost of College Textbooks.'' The report presented an analysis
of a survey of the most widely assigned textbooks in the fall
of 2003 at ten public colleges and universities in California
and Oregon, and found trends surrounding the high cost of
college textbooks.
The CALPIRG report found textbooks are expensive and are
getting more so each year; textbook publishers add ``bells and
whistles'' that drive up the costs of textbooks; new editions
are flooding the market (but contain minimal if any substantive
changes); and online textbooks hold promise in reducing the
costs of textbooks, according to Merriah Fairchild, author of
the report.
The hearing also provided an opportunity for Subcommittee
members to discuss potential solutions that could increase
affordability for students. For example, the textbook services
system at the University of Wisconsin-River Falls, which allows
students to ``check out'' textbooks for the semester and
functions similarly to a library, has proven popular among
students as a means to reduce costs, testified Virgil Monroe,
manager of the program.
``Students like the control a rental system gives them.
They may buy the texts they think will be of value to them in
the future, in later classes or in their professions, but they
are not forced to buy texts that they may never use again. Our
students also have a voice, through the Textbook Services
Advisory Committee, the Student Senate and the Fees and
Facilities Board, in reviewing Textbook Services policies and
procedures and in setting the textbook rental fee each year,''
said Monroe.
Closing the hearing, Chairman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon (R-
CA) said the Subcommittee would continue to focus on
eliminating barriers to affordability for students, and would
continue to examine the role textbook prices play in driving up
overall college costs.
``As Congress continues the process of renewing and
reauthorizing the Higher Education Act and builds on efforts to
bridge the educational divide for America's low and middle-
income students, it is important that we continue our dialogue
and continue to work toward issues that increase college
affordability,'' said McKeon.
STRENGTHENING TEACHER TRAINING & TEACHER COLLEGES
Teacher quality was an important focus for the 21st Century
Competitiveness Subcommittee in the 108th Congress, both as a
part of the Education and the Workforce Committee's overall
effort to support implementation of the No Child Left Behind
Act, and as part of the Committee's comprehensive effort to
reauthorize the Higher Education Act.
The 21st Century Competitiveness Subcommittee hosted action
on a number of fronts dealing with teacher quality during the
108th Congress. The panel conducted a major hearing to examine
the quality of teacher training programs at America's colleges
and universities. The Subcommittee later approved legislation
that sought to strengthen these programs through increased
accountability. The Subcommittee also approved legislation to
boost student loan relief for highly qualified teachers of key
subjects who teach in high-poverty K-12 schools for at least
five years.
On May 20, 2003, witnesses before the Subcommittee
addressed what many see as a lack of accountability in teacher
colleges and other teacher training programs. Legislators noted
that the No Child Left Behind Act calls for a highly qualified
teacher in every public school classroom by the 2005-2006
school year, making it more important than ever to ensure
teacher colleges are producing highly skilled graduates. Every
child deserves the chance to learn from a highly qualified
teacher, Subcommittee Chairman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon (R-CA)
said, and teacher training programs ought to be meeting the
call of the No Child Left Behind Act and providing highly
qualified teachers to the nation's children.
``Teachers are the heart and soul of the classroom. We
shortchange the nation's students and undermine their prospects
for success if the teaching workforce is not highly
qualified,'' noted U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige in a
statement commending Subcommittee Chairman McKeon for holding
the May 20 hearing.
In June 2002, the Secretary of Education issued the first
full annual report on teacher preparation as required under
Title II of the Higher Education Act (HEA). The report was a
major topic of discussion at the May 20 hearing. The report--
Meeting the Highly Qualified Teachers Challenge: The
Secretary's Annual Report on Teacher Quality--concluded that
the teacher preparation system in the United States has serious
limitations. Not only does acceptable achievement on
certification assessments differ markedly among the states, the
Secretary's report found, but most states, in setting the
minimum score considered to be a passing score, set those
scores well below national averages. The data collected for
this report suggest schools of education and formal teacher
training programs are failing to produce the types of highly
qualified teachers the No Child Left Behind Act demands,
Committee members noted.
Kati Haycock, director of the Education Trust, testified at
the May 20 hearing. She described what she called ``core
problems'' in Title II of the HEA that could lead to a lack of
quality and accountability in teacher training programs.
``Because of the ways in which the current Title II
accountability provisions were crafted, too many institutions
that prepare teachers have been able to avoid real
accountability and, even within institutions where there is
new-found accountability, those who do the academic side of
teacher preparation are off the hook,'' said Haycock. ``And
woefully inadequate data systems interfere with both reporting
and action on these issues, and hamper the efforts of those who
insist that teacher quality should be judged not on proxy
measures of their qualifications but on what matters most:
their ability to grow student knowledge and skills.''
To address the need for greater accountability and quality
in the teacher training programs of the Higher Education Act,
Rep. Phil Gingery (R-GA) introduced the Ready to Teach Act
(H.R. 2211). Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) introduced a complementary
bill--the Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act (H.R. 438)--to
help states and schools recruit highly qualified teachers.
Taken together, supporters noted, the proposed reforms would
help ensure every public classroom is taught by a highly
qualified teacher, as called for in the No Child Left Behind
Act.
On June 4, 2003, the 21st Century Competitiveness
Subcommittee approved H.R. 2211 and H.R. 438 by voice vote,
with bipartisan support. As mentioned earlier in this report,
both bills were later approved by the House.
As approved by the Subcommittee, H.R. 2211 called for
aligning teacher training programs under Title II of the HEA
with the high standards for accountability and results called
for in the No Child Left Behind Act. Supporters argued the
reforms included in the legislation would make several
improvements to ensure that teacher training programs are
providing prospective teachers with the skills they need to be
highly qualified and ready to teach when they enter the
classroom. H.R. 2211 included measures that aimed to improve
the quality of teacher training programs and strengthen
accountability procedures to ensure that program effectiveness
could accurately be measured. The legislation placed a strong
focus on the effectiveness of teacher preparation, and a
renewed emphasis on the skills needed to meet the ``highly
qualified'' standard found in No Child Left Behind: the use of
advanced technology in the classroom, rigorous academic content
knowledge, scientifically based research, and challenging state
student academic standards. In addition, under the proposal
systems would be developed tomeasure the effectiveness of
programs, including a true measure of teacher effectiveness--the
academic achievement of students.
H.R. 2211 also called for teacher recruitment grants, funds
that would be used to recruit individuals, and specifically
minorities, into the teaching profession. Teacher recruitment
grants would help bring high quality individuals into teacher
training programs, and ultimately place more highly qualified
teachers into classrooms. In addition, under the proposal a
priority would be given to grant applicants that would
emphasize measures to recruit minorities into the teaching
profession, providing a teaching workforce that is both highly
qualified and diverse.
An amendment offered by Rep. Max Burns (R-GA), Rep. Major
Owens (D-NY), and Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX), was adopted
during Subcommittee action on the H.R. 2211. The amendment
called for the creation of Centers of Excellence, programs that
would establish high quality teacher training programs in
minority serving institutions.
As approved by the Subcommittee, H.R. 438 proposed
increasing student loan forgiveness from $5,000 to $17,500 for
teachers in high-need schools teaching the high-demand subject
areas of math, science, and special education. Rural and urban
schools in particular are facing significant teacher shortages
in these areas, supporters noted. The loan forgiveness proposal
was included in President Bush's FY 2004 and FY 2005 budget
requests.
Supporters noted that the loan forgiveness proposal in H.R.
438, which received widespread support from educators, would
provide a strong financial incentive for teachers to choose to
teach in high-need schools. By dramatically expanding loan
forgiveness for such teachers, Congress would give high-need
schools a new and powerful tool to recruit and retain highly
qualified teachers for their students.
As mentioned in the Full Committee activities section of
this report, a similar loan forgiveness proposal was signed
into law by President Bush on October 30, 2004. The new law,
passed by Congress as the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act (H.R.
5186), shuts down excess subsidies paid to some loan providers
in the federal student loan program, and uses the savings to
expand loan forgiveness for teachers.
STRENGTHENING AMERICA'S JOB TRAINING PROGRAMS
Early in the 108th Congress, members of the 21st Century
Competitiveness Subcommittee began efforts to strengthen
America's job training programs through reauthorization of the
Workforce Investment Act (WIA).
There was wide agreement among Subcommittee members that
the WIA law had dramatically improved the nation's formerly
fragmented workforce development programs since its adoption in
1998. The law established an innovative one-stop delivery
system in which job-seekers can find labor market information,
job counseling, and job training to help them get back on their
feet.
Renewing and strengthening the WIA system was identified by
Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Boehner (R-
OH), Subcommittee Chairman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon (R-CA),
and other Committee leaders as a major priority for the
Education and the Workforce Committee in the 108th Congress.
While the 1998 reforms have helped to provide workers with the
resources and tools necessary to rejoin the workforce or
retrain for better jobs, they argued, areas of inefficiency and
duplication remain.
The Subcommittee conducted several hearings that confirmed
this premise. Through the hearing process, the panel determined
that (1) the WIA system is sometimes hampered by duplicative
and redundant bureaucracy that prevents it from being as
effective as it could be for workers and their families; (2)
duplication of services under the current WIA system reduces
the amount of money that could be used to efficiently provide
employment and training services to individuals seeking jobs;
and (3) overlap in training programs under the current WIA law
has contributed to the growth of a confusing patchwork at the
state and local level.
On March 11, 2003, the Subcommittee heard testimony from
stakeholders in the nation's workforce development and
rehabilitation systems on methods to strengthen and improve
current programs to improve results for both job seekers and
employers. Witnesses testified about potential solutions to
make the WIA system more efficient, accountable, and responsive
to job seekers, workers, employers, and their communities.
Assistant U.S. Secretary of Labor Emily DeRocco testified
at the March 11 hearing about the potential benefits of
streamlining programs and funding to better serve populations
benefiting from workforce development and rehabilitation
programs.
``Currently the WIA Adult, WIA Dislocated Worker and
Wagner-Peyser funding streams finance similar services targeted
to similar populations,'' said DeRocco. ``Combining these three
funding streams into a single formula grant would result in
streamlined program administration at the state and local level
and the reduction of current duplication and inefficiency.''
Thomas White, President and CEO of the Durham, North
Carolina Chamber of Commerce, testified at the March 11 hearing
regarding the critical role workforce development plays in
economic growth.
``Our communities, our states, and our nation are far more
competitive and productive when we design and operate a
workforce system that includes business and government as full-
fledged partners,'' White told Subcommittee members.
``We stand a far better chance of achieving success, as
measured by tax base expansion, capital investment, job
creation and poverty reduction,'' White added, ``when our
nation's workforce system is fully integrated with our economic
development system so that all our citizens can take advantage
of and reap the benefit from the economic opportunities created
by new and expanding industry.''
On March 13, 2003, Chairman Boehner and Chairman McKeon
introduced the Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act
(H.R. 1261) as the main vehicle for the Committee's effort to
reauthorize and strengthen the WIA system. The proposed bill
sought to improve results for Americans striving to get back to
work by streamlining unnecessary bureaucracy, increasing
effective cooperation among workforce development partners, and
placing an increased emphasis on basic skills in adult
education programs.
Specific highlights of the proposed bill included:
Eliminating duplication and waste. The bill called
for creating a consolidated funding stream to streamline
program administration and create more program efficiency at
the state and local level. Funds would be targeted for those
most in need of critical reemployment services. Priority would
be given to unemployed and low-income individuals in the adult
grant program.
Allowing faith-based groups to help train and re-
train workers. The bill called for allowing faith-based
organizations to participate in the nation's job-training
system. Supporters disagreed with those who believe faith-based
groups should be forced to abandon their religious identities
as a condition of participating in the WIA system. Such groups,
supporters said, should be allowed to take religion into
account when hiring staff. They noted that the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 gives faith-based groups the right to hire workers on a
religious basis, and that President Bill Clinton himself had
signed a number of major laws upholding this right.
Strengthening employment services to help job
seekers get back to work. Employment services would have
continued to be provided as core services in the One Stop
Career Centers under H.R. 1261. To be clear that such services
would continue, the bill called for incorporating current
employment service functions into the description of core
services. For example, one-stop centers would be required to
provide labor exchange services, including job search and
placement assistance, as well as appropriate recruitment
services for employers.
Ensuring the one-stop delivery system is demand-
driven. The bill required state and local workforce investment
boards to ensure that the system is dynamic and reflective of
the workforce needs in the local area, and increases
connections to economic development. H.R. 1261 also called for
allowing training for incumbent workers so employers may
upgrade the skills of current workers. It encouraged the
highest caliber training providers, including community
colleges, to offer training through the one-stop WIA system.
Removing barriers to job training. H.R. 1261
proposed eliminating arbitrary provisions of current law that
prevent someone from accessing training immediately if
appropriate to meet his or her employment goals. State and
local areas would be given the flexibility to tailor services
to meet individuals' needs.
Strengthening partnerships between businesses and
job training service providers. In his FY 2005 budget request,
President Bush proposed a $250 million initiative to strengthen
the role of community colleges and other institutions that
provide job training services to Americans striving to get back
to work.
Led by McKeon and other Subcommittee members, the House
approved the Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act on
May 8, 2003. The Senate approved a different WIA
reauthorization bill in 2004. On June 3, 2004, the House
appointed conferees in an effort to begin negotiations between
the House and Senate on a final WIA reauthorization bill.
Senate minority leaders, however, opposed allowing such a
conference to take place, claiming they wanted assurances
Democrats would be ``treated fairly'' in such a process.
On July 14, 2004, Boehner and McKeon sent a letter to
Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) urging him to allow
the Senate to appoint conferees and move forward with House-
Senate negotiations on the job training bills. Daschle did not
respond to the letter.
On September 22, 2004, Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Y) moved to
appoint Senate conferees on the WIA reauthorization, but the
motion was blocked by Senate Minority Whip Harry Reid (D-NV).
The maneuver effectively killed hopes for reauthorization of
the WIA job training programs in the 108th Congress.
In December 2004, Chairman Boehner indicated efforts to
reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act would again be a
priority for the Committee in the 109th Congress.
PROVIDING PERSONAL REEMPLOYMENT ACCOUNTS TO JOB SEEKERS
As a complement to its two-year effort to reauthorize job
training programs, the 21st Century Competitiveness
Subcommittee also devoted considerable energy during the 108th
Congress to the creation of innovative Personal Reemployment
Accounts (PRAs) for unemployed workers seeking good new jobs.
President Bush proposed the accounts during his first term as a
means of helping Americans return to work during the economic
recovery. On January 29, 2003, Subcommittee member Jon Porter
(R-NV) introduced legislation to establish the reemployment
accounts proposed by President Bush.
The Porter bill, H.R. 444, proposed the creation of $3,000
personal reemployment accounts to help Americans struggling to
return to work. With the funds from these accounts, unemployed
workers would be able to purchase a variety of employment-
related services, such as job training, child care,
transportation, career counseling, housing assistance, and case
management, to help them find a new job and reenter the
workforce. PRAs would allow participating One Stop Career
Centers to offer another important benefit to the unemployed,
in addition to the array of job training and employment-related
services these centers already provide. A key component of the
Porter plan would allow workers who become reemployed within 13
weeks to keep the balance of the account as a cash reemployment
bonus.
In a February 12, 2003 hearing before the Education and the
Workforce Committee, U.S. Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao urged
Congress to move quickly to create the PRA accounts.
``The anticipated economic benefits of the personal
reemployment accounts are numerous,'' Chao testified. ``These
accounts represent a new and innovative approach to helping
unemployed workers make a quick return to work and provide
businesses with the skilled workforce that they need. They will
empower individuals by giving them more flexibility, personal
choice and control over their job search and career.''
``If we maintain the status quo, we guarantee that the
economic opportunities in the workplace of far too many people
will be severely limited,'' said Porter. ``This legislation
will help accelerate the reemployment of many of the citizens
of Nevada and ultimately will help the nation's unemployed make
a quick return to work.''
At a February 19, 2003 field hearing in Las Vegas, Nevada,
Subcommittee members heard from state leaders in Nevada about
the practical benefits of personal reemployment accounts.
Representatives from Nevada's Department of Employment,
Training, and Rehabilitation, and the Southern Nevada Workforce
Investment Board briefed the Subcommittee on Nevada's current
employment situation and what PRAs would mean to Nevada's
unemployed.
PRAs would ``connect more of the unemployed to the Nevada
JobConnect system and the resources it provides,'' said Myla
Florence, director of the Nevada Department of Employment,
Training, and Rehabilitation.
``The kinds of needs people have to become reemployed are
child care, issues, transportation issues, and training needs.
Unemployment just covers the food, clothing, and shelter,''
said Debi Lindemenn, an employment specialist supervisor at the
Nevada Department of Employment, Training, and Rehabilitation.
Additional costs for child care and transportation often
must come from personal savings or other sources, Lindemenn
noted. Subcommittee leaders pointed out that H.R. 444 addressed
this issue by allowing recipients to use the personal accounts
for costs such as child care, transportation, housing
assistance, and other expenses to help in finding a new job.
``This hearing was a great opportunity to hear what's
happening on the ground level in the state of Nevada, to
receive input from local officials, and learn how the [Porter
proposal] can help the unemployed here in the state,'' said
Subcommittee Chairman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon (R-CA).
The Full Committee approved the Porter legislation on March
5, 2003.
Early in 2004, President Bush included a PRA pilot project
in his FY 2005 budget, and Rep. Porter subsequently introduced
another version of his legislation--the Worker Reemployment
Accounts Act--that was similar to the pilot project proposed by
President Bush. The new version of the bill sought to permit
demonstration and pilot project funding under the Workforce
Investment Act (WIA) to be used by states and local workforce
investment boards to offer PRAs to unemployed individuals. The
House passed this version of the Porter bill on June 3, 2004.
In the fall of 2004, the U.S. Department of Labor began
using its administrative authority for a pilot project--similar
to the Porter proposal--to test the effectiveness of PRAs in
seven states. The states chosen were Florida, Idaho, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Montana, Texas and West Virginia.
In the 109th Congress, the Education and the Workforce
Committee is expected to build on the progress made in 2004 by
working with President Bush and state officials to expand the
number of workers eligible to take advantage of Personal
Reemployment Accounts.
BUILDING ON THE SUCCESSES OF THE 1996 WELFARE REFORM LAW
One of the most successful social policies ever enacted,
the 1996 welfare reforms have transformed the lives of millions
of families and helped them achieve self-sufficiency.
The 21st Century Competitiveness Subcommittee began the
108th Congress with a renewed effort to reauthorize and
strengthen the 1996 reforms, as called for by President Bush. A
similar effort was made throughout the 107th Congress, but was
left uncompleted due largely to a lack of bipartisan support.
On February 13, 2003, the House passed the Personal
Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act (H.R. 4) to
build upon the 1996 reforms. The measure, co-authored by
members of the Education and the Workforce Committee and based
on President Bush's reform blueprint, sought to strengthen work
requirements under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) block grant program to help move more welfare recipients
into productive jobs.
The measure was substantively the same as H.R. 4737, which
the House had passed in 2002 during attempts by the 107th
Congress to extend the 1996 reforms. The measure passed by the
House on February 13 also incorporated provisions of H.R. 4092,
the Working Toward Independence Act, which the Education and
the Workforce Committee approved in the 107th Congress. A
summary of the measure passed by the House in 2003 is included
below:
TANF Block Grant and Work Requirements
H.R. 4 called for incorporating the central feature of
President George W. Bush's welfare reform proposal:
strengthening work requirements. While the 1996 reforms reduced
welfare caseloads, a majority of TANF recipients are still not
working for their benefits, supporters of H.R. 4 noted.
According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services'
Fourth Annual Report to Congress (May 2002), approximately 60
percent of TANF adult recipients are not participating in work
activities as defined by federal law, which includes work and
various other job training and education activities.
Among the details of H.R. 4:
Achieving Independence Through Work. H.R. 4 sought
to require recipients to be engaged in work activities for 40
hours a week. (Current law requires single and two-parent
families to be engaged in work-related activities for 30 and 35
hours a week, respectively.) The bill proposed requiring 24
hours of the 40-hour requirement to be spent in actual work,
including unsubsidized employment, subsidized private or public
sector employment, on-the-job training, supervised work
experience, or community service. The remaining 16 hours would
be defined by states, and could include education and training.
H.R. 4 called for giving states the option of allowing low-
income parents to spend part of the remaining 16 hours in
organized activities with their children aimed at improving
child well-being, such as boys-and-girls clubs, Scouting, and
education programs. Welfare recipients could attend school
full-time for four months of a two-year period if the education
was tied to employment.
``Moving folks into employment is not the only goal of [the
federal welfare program], as important as that is. In the end,
it's about whether the kids are better off,'' Wade F. Horn,
President Bush's assistant secretary for children and families
at the Department of Health and Human Services, explained to
the Los Angeles Times (Peterson, ``Welfare Plan Would Count
Family Time, March 28, 2002).
Additionally, H.R. 4 called for allowing three months
within any 24 consecutive months in full-time substance abuse
treatment, rehabilitative services, work-related education or
training, and job search to count toward the work requirement.
This provision sought to give recipients and states additional
flexibility to meet the bill's work requirements.
Putting More Americans on the Path to Self-
Sufficiency. H.R. 4 would have created a policy of universal
engagement so that all families receiving welfare benefits must
be in work or other activities leading to self-sufficiency.
Each family receiving welfare benefits would have a self-
sufficiency plan, and each family's participation in activities
would be monitored. The measure also called for increasing the
percentage of welfare families in each state that must be
engaged in work-related activities--currently 50 percent--to 70
percent by 2008.
Rewarding States for Helping People Remain Self-
Sufficient. The measure called for maintaining an updated
caseload reduction credit to reward states that help
individuals find employment or avoid enrolling in cash
assistance.
Protecting Families with Small Children. The
proposed bill would have given states flexibility in
determining sanctioning policies for families that don't meet
work requirements, although recipients must engage in work
activities at least once during a two-month consecutive period
to remain eligible for TANF assistance, unless good cause is
shown. However, the bill would have required states to continue
assistance for single parents who have a child under age six
and can't obtain child care. In addition, states could have
chosen to exclude from the participation rate calculation
families with children less than one year old.
Enhancing State Flexibility. Under the proposed
measure, states' work participation rates would have been based
on the total number of countable hours worked per month, rather
than the number of families meeting the participation standard.
Therefore, 160 hours of work per month would have counted as
one family fulfilling the full 40-hour work requirement. States
could have received pro-rata credit toward the work requirement
for families that meet at least the 24-hour actual work
activity requirement.
State and Local Waivers. In order to empower
states to develop innovative solutions to help welfare
recipients achieve independence, the measure called for
offering broadened waiver authority for states and localities
to coordinate certain welfare and workforce development
programs. This new flexibility would have helped states create
broad, comprehensive assistance programs for needy families--as
long as they achieve the purpose of the underlying program and
continue to target those in need. The proposed bill would have
prohibited civil rights, labor, and environmental requirements
from being waived.
State Plan Requirements. H.R. 4 called for
requiring states to develop plans on how they will increase
work and reduce dependence, including specific performance
objectives. States would have had the flexibility to determine
the methods they use to measure their progress.
Employment Achievement Bonus. The proposed measure
would have created a $100 million annual bonus to reward
employment, which would have been developed in consultation
with states. Each state would have had annual numerical targets
under the plan and would have competed against its performance
from the previous year. All states would have been eligible for
a bonus if their performance met established targets.
Improving Child Care for Families
In addition to strengthening the work requirements in
current law, H.R. 4 also called for reauthorizing the Child
Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG). Subcommittee members
emphasized during the 108th Congress that access to appropriate
child care is essential to helping welfare families move from
welfare to work. The CCDBG , they noted, also plays a key role
in early childhood education, which President Bush has called
upon Congress to improve.
H.R. 4 proposed maintaining historic funding for the CCDBG
and improving the program by giving states maximum flexibility
to develop child care programs and policies that best meet the
needs of children and parents.
Among the specific details of H.R. 4 as it related to child
care and development:
Increasing Funding Levels. The proposed measure
sought to reauthorize the Child Care and Development Block
Grant (CCDBG) through 2008. It sought to authorize an
additional $2 billion to support working families by providing
child care assistance to low-income parents trying to achieve
or maintain independence from public assistance.
Giving States Maximum Flexibility. The bill called
for giving states maximum flexibility to develop child care
programs and policies that best meet the needs of children and
parents. It sought to encourage states to create partnerships
with public and private entities to increase the supply and
quality of child care services, and to coordinatechild care
services under the bill with other child care and early childhood
education programs--including Head Start, Early Reading First, Even
Start, and state-sponsored pre-kindergarten programs.
Improving Child Care Quality. Consistent with
President Bush's early childhood education initiative released
last year, Good Start, Grow Smart, the bill called for
encouraging states to address the cognitive needs of young
children so that they are developmentally prepared to enter
school. It also would have encouraged states to utilize
resources in their state to collect and disseminate information
to parents, consumers, and child care providers. Moreover, the
proposed bill would have emphasized the importance of quality
child care and education by requesting states to address the
quality of care available to children and parents.
H.R. 4 called for requiring states to devote at least six
percent of funds from the CCDBG to improve child care quality,
and establish permissible uses for those funds. It also would
have requested that states work to meet the needs of parents
eligible for assistance who have children with special needs,
work non-traditional hours, or require infant and toddler care.
Promoting Parental Choice. The measure would have
promoted parental choice to empower eligible parents to make
their own decisions on the child care that best suits their
family's needs.
Renewal of the successful 1996 welfare reforms is expected
to again be a top priority for members of the 21st Century
Subcommittee when the 109th Congress convenes in January 2005.
IMPROVING ACCESS TO ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH
DISABILITIES
Members of the 21st Century Competitiveness Subcommittee
led the way during the 108th Congress for successful
reauthorization of the Assistive Technology Act, the federal
law that helps states provide access to technology such as
wheelchairs and hearing, reading, or other communication
devices to individuals with disabilities.
On May 12, 2004, the Subcommittee approved legislation
introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
(R-CA) to reauthorize the programs and expand support for
individuals.
``Millions of Americans with disabilities count on
assistive technology devices to enhance their quality of life
and overcome their daily challenges,'' said McKeon after
passage of the legislation. ``I am very pleased that my
colleagues and I were able to work together in a bipartisan
manner to pass the Improving Access to Assistive Technology for
Individuals with Disabilities Act, and helped knock out a
significant barrier for our nation's hardworking people with
disabilities.''
The assistive technology state grant program was first
enacted in 1988 as a 10-year program to provide states funds to
establish an infrastructure for increasing access to, and
distribution of, assistive technology devices.
The McKeon legislation preserves these state grants but
refocuses their purpose to reflect the top priority of helping
individuals. By directing states to spend the majority of their
federal assistive technology grants on activities that directly
benefit individuals with disabilities, the legislation--signed
into law by President Bush on October 25, 2004--will help
guarantee individuals greater access to assistive technology.
The new law encourages states to invest in programs that have
been shown to be most effective in providing assistive
technology to individuals with disabilities.
HEARINGS ON SAFETY IN AMERICA'S CLASSROOMS
On May 24, 2004, the 21st Century Competitiveness
Subcommittee conducted a field hearing in Las Vegas, Nevada, at
the request of Rep. Jon Porter (R-NV) to study the provisions
of H.R. 2649, the Schools Safely Acquiring Faculty Excellence
Act of 2003, legislation designed to keep children safe in
America's classrooms. Witnesses testified on the need for
teacher background checks at the national, state, and local
levels; and encouraged greater information sharing between
states.
Dr. George Ann Rice, Associate Superintendent of the Clark
County Schools' Human Resources Division, testified on the
unique challenges facing the Clark County School District
(CCSD) in Las Vegas, Nevada. The school district encompasses
more than 300 schools, serving nearly 270,000 students. To
maintain pace with the district's growth, the school district
must hire between 1,500 and 2,000 new teachers a year. Clark
County recruited prospective teachers from 39 states to meet
its needs for the 2003-2004 school year. To ensure student
safety, the school district has implemented rigorous procedures
for background checks, Rice told members of Congress.
Additional witnesses included Ms. Carol Lark, Principal of
the C.P. Squires Elementary in North Las Vegas, Nevada; and
Mrs. D.J. Stutz, President of the Nevada State Parent Teacher
Association (PTA) and a member of the Board of the National
PTA.
On September 28, 2004, members of the Subcommittee on 21st
Century Competitiveness gathered in Washington, D.C., to hear
testimony on the importance of school employee background
checks in ensuring student safety in the nation's schools.
Witnesses, including a representative from the nation's sixth
largest school district, outlined current practices in place
for background checks at the national, state and local levels,
and encouraged more information sharing between states. The
hearing was chaired by Rep. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon (R-CA),
chairman of the Subcommittee.
During the hearing, Rep. Porter discussed his legislation,
the Schools Safely Acquiring Faculty Excellence Act, which
called for steps to encourage states to share criminal
information about potential school employees through the
National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact.
Donna Uzzell, chairman of the National Crime Prevention and
Privacy Compact Council (Compact) and director of the Florida
Department of Law Enforcement's Criminal Justice Information
Services, offered a description of the Compact and provided
information on Florida's innovative screening processes.
The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) has been the
``central point of information about criminal offenders in the
United States'' for more than 80 years. The FBI acts as a
central index for all 50 states, U.S. territories and federal
agencies that hold criminal records on offenders. The Compact
was established in 1998 to allow states ``the means to release
their records provided the check is fingerprinted based and
authorized by state or federal laws'' for non-criminal justice
purposes according to Ms. Uzzell. At the time of the hearing,
21 states were participating in the Compact.
The Compact ``eliminates redundant handling of records,
reduces opportunities for error, and provides for the most
complete records to be supplied,'' said Uzzell. She also
expounded her remarks to cover specific steps taken in Florida
to ensure complete school employee background checks.
Additional witnesses at the hearing included Ms. Barbara
Belak, assistant to the Associate Superintendent of Human
Resources for the Clark County School District in Las Vegas,
Nevada; and Dr. William Dean, superintendent of the Frederick
County Public Schools in Winchester, Virginia.
In addition to these two hearings, the Subcommittee on 21st
Century Competitiveness held a field hearing in Phoenix,
Arizona, to study the impact of highly qualified teachers on
student academic achievement. A more detailed description of
the Phoenix field hearing is included in the section of this
report outlining the activities of the Full Committee under
``Supporting Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act of
2001 (NCLB).''
II. Hearings Held by the Subcommittee
108th Congress, First Session
March 4, 2003--Hearing on ``Improving Adult Education for
the 21st Century'' (108-4)
March 11, 2003--Hearing on ``Workforce Investment and
Rehabilitation Acts: Improving Services and Empowering
Individuals'' (108-6)
May 20, 2003--Hearing on ``America's Teacher Colleges: Are
They Making the Grade?'' (108-16)
July 10, 2003--Hearing on ``Affordability in Higher
Education: We know there's a problem; What's the solution?''
(108-24)
July 15, 2003--Hearing on ``Expanding Access to College in
America: How the Higher Education Act Can Put College Within
Reach'' (108-25)
July 22, 2003--Hearing on ``Consolidation Loans: What's
Best for Past Borrowers, Future Students, & U.S. Taxpayers?''
(108-28)
September 11, 2003--Hearing on ``H.R. 3039, the Expanding
Opportunities in Higher Education Act of 2003'' (108-31)
September 23, 2003--Hearing on ``The College Cost Crisis
Report: Are Institutions Accountable Enough to Students and
Parents?'' (108-33)
108th Congress, Second Session
May 24, 2004--Field hearing on ``H.R. 2649, the Schools
Safely Acquiring Faculty Excellence Act of 2003'' in Las Vegas,
Nevada (108-60)
May 27, 2004--Field hearing on ``Highly Qualified Teachers
and Raising Student Achievement'' in Phoenix, Arizona (108-61)
June 22, 2004--Hearing on ``H.R. 4283, the College Access &
Opportunity Act: Does Accreditation Provide Students and
Parents Accountability and Quality?'' (108-64)
July 20, 2004--Hearing on ``Are College Textbooks Priced
Fairly?'' (108-70)
September 23, 2004--Hearing on ``Are Current Safeguards
Protecting Taxpayers Against Diploma Mills?'' (108-72)
September 28, 2004--Hearing on ``H.R. 2649, Schools Safely
Acquiring Faculty Excellence Act'' (108-73)
III. Markups Held by the Subcommittee
108th Congress, First Session
February 26, 2003--H.R. 444, Back to Work Incentive Act of
2003 was ordered favorably reported, as amended, to the Full
Committee by a vote of 15-12.
March 20, 2003--H.R. 1261, Workforce Reinvestment and Adult
Education Act of 2003 was ordered favorably reported, as
amended, to the Full Committee by a vote of 15-12.
June 4, 2003--H.R. 438, Teacher Recruitment and Retention
Act of 2003 was ordered favorably reported, as amended, to the
Full Committee by voice vote. H.R. 2211, Ready to Teach Act of
2003 was ordered favorably reported, as amended, to the Full
Committee by voice vote.
108th Congress, Second Session
May 13, 2004--H.R. 4278, Improving Access to Assistive
Technology for People with Disabilities Act of 2004 was ordered
favorably reported, as amended, to the Full Committee by voice
vote.
IV. Subcommittee Statistics
Total Number of Bills and Resolution Referred to Subcommittee..... 193
Total Number of Hearings.......................................... 14
Field......................................................... 2
Jointly with Other Committees................................. 0
Total Number of Subcommittee Markup Sessions...................... 4
Total Number of Bills Reported From Subcommittee.................. 5
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM
I. Summary of Activities
In the 108th Congress, the Subcommittee on Education Reform
achieved numerous legislative victories, including enactment of
legislation to strengthen special education, and improve child
nutrition and school lunch programs to help parents combat
childhood obesity. The Subcommittee also held hearings and
approved legislation to strengthen early childhood education,
help states and local communities improve vocational and
technical education, support implementation of the No Child
Left Behind Act, and enhance financial literacy among youth.
The Education Reform Subcommittee, chaired in the 108th
Congress by Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE), has jurisdiction broadly
over education programs from preschool to the high school
level, including the No Child Left Behind Act, special
education, preschool programs including the Head Start Act,
school lunch and child nutrition programs, vocational and
technical education, and anti-poverty programs. Education
reform was a focal point for congressional Republicans in the
108th Congress, with numerous bills moving from the Education
Reform Subcommittee through the House and to President Bush for
his signature.
One of the first legislative priorities of the 108th
Congress was enactment of bipartisan legislation to strengthen
and renew special education under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Reauthorization of the IDEA
was a goal originally set for 2002, with a strong foundation
for special education reform having been established in the
107th Congress. Subcommittee Chairman Castle worked closely
with Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John
Boehner (R-OH) in 2003 to introduce and steer through the House
legislation to improve educational results for students with
disabilities. That bill was signed into law by President Bush
on December 3, 2004, representing a major bipartisan
legislative achievement at the close of the 108th Congress.
The Education Reform Subcommittee also worked in the 108th
Congress to improve federal school lunch and child nutrition
programs. Led by Subcommittee Chairman Castle, the House in
2004 approved legislation to strengthen the integrity of the
federal child nutrition programs to ensure they are serving
children and families in need. The bill also included important
steps to help parents and local communities address the child
obesity epidemic, a pressing health problem for America's
youth. The bipartisan legislation includes the creation of
local wellness policies, so that local communities can make
decisions on how best to improve the nutrition and wellness of
their children.
The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act (H.R. 3873)
was widely praised by school groups and nutrition and hunger
advocates, and received broad bipartisan support in both the
House and the Senate. In an interview with Education Daily,
Barry Sackin with the American School Food Service Association
(ASFSA) said, ``This is the most far-reaching child nutrition
bill in a generation.'' The bill was signed into law by
President Bush on June 30, 2004.
Following are more comprehensive details of the activities
of the Subcommittee on Education Reform in the 108th Congress
(January 2003-December 2004).
IMPROVING ACADEMIC RESULTS FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
Reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) was a top priority for Republicans in the
108th Congress. After holding a series of hearings and
launching an innovative web-based outreach initiative in the
107th Congress, Education Reform Subcommittee Chairman Mike
Castle (R-DE) led efforts to strengthen and renew special
education with the first major education reform bill in 2003.
Kicking off the reauthorization process with a hearing on
March 13, 2003, Castle invited witnesses to testify on how
academic results for children with disabilities could be
improved under the IDEA.
``This landmark legislation has played a vital role in
ensuring that children with special needs receive the high-
quality education they deserve,'' said Castle at the hearing.
``Although IDEA has had many success stories, there is still
room for improvement in serving children with disabilities.
Children with disabilities are still among those at greatest
risk of being left behind.''
``Now more than ever, we must see that children with
disabilities are given access to an education that maximizes
their unique abilities and provides them with the tools for
later success,'' continued Castle. ``We must be vigilant in our
efforts toward improving their quality of education by focusing
on better education results, reducing the paperwork burden for
special education teachers, and addressing the problem of over-
identification of minority students as disabled.''
The No Child Left Behind Act, the education reform law
signed by President Bush in January 2002, injected
accountability into education and paved the way for the
reauthorization of the IDEA by ensuring that all children,
including those with disabilities, are provided with a high-
quality education, noted Dianne Talarico, superintendent of the
Canton City (OH) School District.
``I believe the success of the No Child Left Behind Act and
the reauthorization of IDEA are intricately woven together,''
testified Talarico. ``The reauthorization of IDEA offers a
tremendous opportunity to further flesh out these high
expectations for students with disabilities and thus increase
academic achievement, graduation rates and post-school
employment and participation in postsecondary school for
students with disabilities.''
Teachers and school officials were struggling under a
crushing paperwork burden under IDEA law, and reducing this
paperwork burden would improve outcomes for children with
disabilities by allowing teachers to focus more on students and
less on the often-unnecessary bureaucracy involved with
paperwork, testified Harriet Brown, director of elementary and
secondary education policy and procedures in Orlando, Florida.
Brown offered several suggestions for areas where paperwork
could be reduced, and pointed out that educating children, not
filling out paperwork, is the goal of educators.
``We need to return to the spirit of the law by focusing on
teaching and learning while we help students with disabilities
achieve,'' said Brown.
In addition to reducing the paperwork burden, reforms to
the IDEA could help improve results for children by reducing
misidentification and over-identification of special education
students, testified Dr. Douglas Carnine, director and professor
of the National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators at the
University of Oregon. He pointed out that early intervention
strategies can often improve results for children and reduce
later identification as being learning disabled.
``Accountability for results with special education
students combined with early intervention shows promising
results. The President's Commission on Excellence in Special
Education reported that `* * * when aggressive reading programs
are implemented with accountability for results, learning
disability identifications are reduced,' '' pointed out
Carnine. ``They also commented on the identification process
stating that `the Commission finds that many children who are
placed into special education are instructional casualties and
not students with disabilities.' ''
As mentioned in testimony at the March 13 hearing, in July
of 2002, the President's Commission on Excellence in Special
Education released a final report outlining principles for
special education reform. That report, with its strong emphasis
on paperwork reduction, early intervention, parental choice,
and academic results for students, laid the groundwork on which
the final special education reauthorization bill was based. The
report emphasized the need to move the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act away from compliance with cumbersome
and bureaucratic rules and restore the focus to educational
results for students.
Led by Subcommittee Chairman Castle, Education and the
Workforce Committee members on March 19, 2003 introduced the
Improving Education Results for Children with Disabilities Act
(H.R. 1350), legislation hailed by one prominent school
organization as ``the best special education policy revisions
we've seen in decades.''
The bill was approved by the Education Reform Subcommittee
by voice vote, with no recorded opposition, on April 3, 2003.
At the time of Subcommittee approval, H.R. 1350 had received
significant support from parents, teachers, and those involved
in special education, commending the reforms in the bill and
emphasizing the importance of improving education results for
children with disabilities.
The National Association of State Boards of Education, the
Council of Chief State School Officers, the National Conference
on State Legislatures, and the National Association of State
Directors of Special Education were among organizations voicing
support for H.R. 1350's goals of reducing the paperwork burden
and increasing support for teachers.
``Our organizations are particularly pleased with efforts
to streamline IDEA by removing bureaucracy and unnecessary
paperwork. Special education teachers overwhelmingly list
paperwork as the biggest obstacle to delivering quality service
to children with disabilities. Time spent on unnecessary
administrative activities decreases valuable instructional time
and impedes academic progress,'' stated a letter from those
organizations.
The bill also made several other significant reforms to
current law, including a call for stronger accountability and
improved results for students, greater flexibility for local
school districts to improve early intervention strategies,
provisions to reduce the number of children wrongly placed in
special education classes, and innovative strategies to reduce
litigation and restore trust between parents and school
districts. These reforms, many of which were called for by
parents and teachers through the web-based ``Great IDEAs''
project, will significantly renew special education and provide
much-needed reforms for students with special needs, noted
Castle upon Subcommittee approval.
``We all know that the reauthorization of the IDEA is one
of the most important responsibilities that we have in this
committee,'' said Castle. ``The decisions that we make in this
law have a significant impact on the lives of millions of
children with disabilities and their parents.''
As discussed in the Full Committee activities section of
this report, H.R. 1350 was approved in the House on April 30,
2003, and companion legislation was approved by the Senate in
May 2004. On November 17, 2004, a bipartisan House-Senate
conference was held to reconcile the bills and produce final
special education reform legislation. Based largely on the
findings of President Bush's Commission on Excellence in
Special Education, the conference report to H.R. 1350, known in
its final form as the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Improvement Act, improves educational results for students with
disabilities by:
Making special education stronger for students and
parents;
Reducing unnecessary lawsuits and litigation;
Supporting teachers and schools; and
Reforming special education funding and building
on historic funding increases.
The bill was signed into law by President Bush on December
3, 2004.
PROTECTING PARENTS FROM BEING FORCED TO MEDICATE THEIR CHILDREN
As part of larger efforts to support parents of children in
special education, the Education Reform Subcommittee looked
into allegations that parents were being forced to medicate
their children as a condition of their attending school. On May
6, 2003, the Education Reform Subcommittee held a hearing on
the topic. Witnesses discussed the issues surrounding the
increasing use of psychotropic medications in America's
schools, and the role educators can and should play in the
decision to medicate a child.
The Subcommittee took an interest in the issue because the
use of psychotropic medications, such as Ritalin or Adderall,
had become increasingly prevalent in the nation's schools,
causing a debate among parents, schools, and medical
professionals as to the appropriate roles each party should
play in the process.
In March of 2003, Rep. Max Burns (R-GA) introduced the
Child Medication Safety Act (H.R. 1170), a bill that called for
states, as a condition of receiving federal education funds, to
establish policies and procedures prohibiting school personnel
from requiring a child to take medication in order to attend
school. A non-controversial provision similar to the Burns
measure was included in legislation to reauthorize the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the
nation's special education law.
``Schools are an important source of information for
families and we encourage an open line of communication between
schools and families,'' said Subcommittee Chairman Mike Castle
(R-DE) at the hearing. ``Parents, however, should never be
forced to decide between getting their child into school and
keeping their child off of potentially harmful drugs. School
personnel should never presume to know the medication needs of
a child. Only medical doctors have the ability to determine if
a prescription for a psychotropic drug is physically
appropriate for a child.''
To address the issue, a number of states had passed laws
preventing school personnel from requiring that a parent
medicate their child in order for the child to attend school,
members learned. Connecticut, Minnesota, Illinois, and Virginia
had passed such laws, and Georgia, Hawaii, North Carolina,
Utah, and Texas had established Commissions or enacted
resolutions to investigate this issue or encourage schools to
use proven methods of addressing behavior problems instead of
relying on medication, the hearing revealed.
Katherine Bryson, a Utah state legislator, testified on her
work in her state to prevent ``horror stories'' in which
parents are forced to choose between an education for their
children or making their children take medication they fear may
be unnecessary and even harmful.
``School personnel faced with children who often have not
been properly taught to read, who may be coming to school on a
breakfast of sugar or no breakfast at all, who could be
affected by lead, mercury or other toxic substances--a plethora
of explainable reasons--are assessing them in the classroom as
having a `learning disorder' or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder,'' testified Bryson at the hearing. ``From here,
parents are being coerced into drugging their child with
threats of the child's expulsion or charges of medical neglect
by Child Protective Services against the parents.''
``Parents are losing their right to choose. They are being
told that ADHD is a `neurobiological' disorder when even the
Surgeon General's 1999 report on mental health cannot confirm
this,'' continued Bryson. ``They are being denied access to
tutoring or additional educational services for the sake of a
`quick fix' drug like Ritalin that some studies say is more
potent than cocaine.''
To protect the rights of parents and ensure medical
diagnoses are appropriately made between children, parents, and
trained medical personnel, the final special education reform
bill signed into law by President Bush on December 3, 2004
(H.R. 1350) included the Burns provision to ensure parents are
not forced to medicate their children against their own better
judgment.
COMBATING CHILDHOOD OBESITY & ENHANCING INTEGRITY IN SCHOOL LUNCH AND
NUTRITION PROGRAMS
Reauthorization of school lunch and child nutrition
programs was a high priority for the Education Reform
Subcommittee in the 108th Congress. Education Reform
Subcommittee Chairman Mike Castle (R-DE) was particularly
interested in helping states and local communities address the
childhood obesity epidemic, a growing problem for America's
youth.
On July 16, 2003, the Education Reform Subcommittee held a
hearing entitled ``Food for Thought: How to Improve Child
Nutrition Programs'' that examined issues surrounding childhood
obesity, nutrition programs for children and families and
school meal programs.
``There is general agreement on the importance of good
nutrition for everyone, especially children,'' said
Subcommittee Chairman Castle. ``Proper nutrition is essential
for children to achieve full physical development and long-term
health, but questions remain about how the federal government
can best provide lower-income children with access to healthy,
affordable meals.''
A series of federal child nutrition programs were scheduled
to be reauthorized in the 108th Congress. Those programs,
representing a $16 billion yearly commitment by the federal
government to the health and nutrition of children and
families, include the National School Lunch and Breakfast
Programs, the Child and Adult Care Food Program, the Summer
Food Service Program, and the Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). Witnesses at
the hearing made a variety of recommendations on improving
these programs.
``The crisis of obesity [is] the fastest growing cause of
disease and death in America. And it's completely
preventable,'' stated Surgeon General Richard Carmona, while
discussing the growth of childhood obesity. He suggested
increasing awareness among parents and children of how to
prevent obesity my making healthy food choices and increasing
physical activity.
``Some people want to blame the food industry for our
growing waistlines. The reality is that restaurants, including
many fast food restaurants, now offer low-fat, healthy choices.
For the meals we eat at home, and the meals we eat out, it's
still our decisions what we eat, where we eat, and how much we
eat,'' concluded Carmona.
The Education Reform Subcommittee also held a hearing to
examine the role overall wellness, including physical activity,
plays in improving childhood health and reducing child obesity.
Witnesses at the hearing, held February 12, 2004, told the
panel physical activity is essential for reducing childhood
obesity and promoting healthy lifestyles.
``Parents bear primary responsibility for ensuring that
their children eat well and exercise regularly,'' said Castle
at the hearing. ``However, schools can and should play a
positive role by giving children access to nutritious meals and
snacks, nutrition education, and time to engage in daily
physical activity.''
Witnesses examined statistics showing an increase in
childhood obesity and explored how physical activity--or a lack
thereof--can impact this trend.
``We have all heard the statistics about the health crisis
facing our nation's youth. Probably one of the most widely used
and significant is the Center for Disease Control's (CDC)
report that the percentage of children ages 6 to 11 who are
overweight has increased nearly 300 percent during the past 25
years,'' said Tim McCord, chair of physical education for the
Titusville Area School District in Titusville, Pennsylvania.
Promoting healthful choices for children must be a
comprehensive effort focused not just on food but on an overall
healthy lifestyle, Subcommittee members noted at the hearing.
Parents, communities, and schools each have a role to play in
reducing childhood obesity and other health risks by
encouraging children to make healthy choices in both the food
they eat and the activities they participate in, the hearing
participants agreed.
Consistent with the hearing findings that comprehensive
reforms are needed to improve child nutrition programs and
address the childhood obesity epidemic, Rep. Castle on March 3,
2004 introduced the Child Nutrition Improvement and Integrity
Act (H.R. 3873). The Education Reform Subcommittee approved the
bill the next day by voice vote, with no recorded opposition.
The legislation reauthorized the federal Child Nutrition Act,
the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, and related
programs.
The Child Nutrition Improvement and Integrity Act improves
nutritional services for vulnerable children by strengthening
the certification process, ensuring access for eligible
children, and addressing program integrity by ensuring benefits
are provided to children who are eligible. It also works to
help states and local communities address concerns about child
obesity, and continues to combat hunger and food insecurity
among needy children and families.
The bill, signed into law by President Bush on June 30,
2004 as the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act:
Helps states & schools fight childhood obesity.
The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act promotes
healthy choices and physical activity for children while
preserving local decision-making authority. The establishment
of local wellness policies, which would be written at the local
level to reflect local needs, will promote nutrition education
and increased physical activity while maintaining local
control. These local wellness efforts will complement the
larger aims of federal child nutrition programs--combating
hunger and food insecurity, and ensuring eligible children
receive nutrition assistance.
Improves integrity of the school lunch program.
The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act makes a number
of reforms to ensure eligible children have access to services
and address growing concerns that the federal school lunch
program does not do enough to ensure free and reduced-price
lunch benefits go to children who qualify. By strengthening and
streamlining the certification process, the bill will ensure
federal resources are being effectively leveraged to serve
children in need.
Improves access to nutrition for vulnerable
children. The legislation includes steps to improve access for
vulnerable children, including: ensuring children whose parents
are in the Armed Forces and living in privatized military
housing continue receiving free or reduced-price meals at
school if they meet eligibility requirements; helping parents
by allowing them to submit a single application for multiple
children; and reducing paperwork by allowing school lunch
certifications to be valid for one full year, preventing
situations in which schools are forced to repeatedly certify
children within a single school year.
Improves integrity of the WIC (Women, Infants, &
Children) supplemental program. The Child Nutrition and WIC
Reauthorization Act also renews the Special Supplemental
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). The
bill improves the certification process for WIC participation
and takes steps to ensure program integrity. The bill includes
common sense cost containment measures to address concerns
about efficiency in the use of taxpayer resources, particularly
within the WIC program. The strong cost containment measures
will ensure WIC food costs and voucher payments are consistent
with competitive retail prices for supplemental foods. This
common sense reform will improve efficiency in the use of
taxpayer dollars while protecting the ability to serve the
greatest number of eligible women, infants, and children.
Included in the new law is a provision offered by Rep. Ric
Keller (R-FL) to reduce the stigma among children receiving
free and reduced-price lunches by helping schools make
technological improvements--such as automated ``meal card''
systems that keep students'' financial status confidential--to
increase the efficiency of program operations.
The new law also includes an initiative proposed by Reps.
Fred Upton (R-M) and Ron Kind (D-WI) to strengthen partnerships
between local agriculture and schools to ensure fresh, local
produce can go from farms to schools.
IMPROVING ACADEMIC RESULTS & FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY IN EARLY
CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS
In 2002, following completion of the No Child Left Behind
Act, President Bush called on Congress to pass legislation to
strengthen results in early childhood education, including
thefederal Head Start early childhood program. Members of the
Subcommittee on Education Reform embraced the President's call for
early childhood education reform, which became one of the Committee's
leading priorities for the 108th Congress. However, the attempted Head
Start reauthorization in 2003 became the focal point of an intense
debate between lawmakers concerned about protecting the rights of
children, parents, teachers, and taxpayers, and entrenched lobbying
groups devoted to preserving the status quo at any expense. Lobbyists
characterized their positions as an effort to ``save Head Start,'' but
by the conclusion of the 108th Congress, many legislators had concluded
the real threat to the program's future success was the lobbying
community itself.
Numerous reports of financial and administrative
mismanagement by Head Start grantees were documented in the
American press during 2003 and 2004. While some characterized
the abuses individually as ``isolated incidents,'' serious
potential abuses were documented by the media in more than a
dozen cities nationwide in 2003. In one of the worst incidents,
a Head Start executive in Kansas City, Missouri--who testified
before the Subcommittee on Education Reform in opposition to
efforts by President Bush to increase accountability in the
Head Start program--was later revealed by the Kansas City Star
to have been earning a salary in excess of $300,000 annually
and driving a luxury sport-utility vehicle leased, in part,
with federal Head Start funds meant for disadvantaged children.
Subcommittee leaders expressed profound disappointment
during the 108th Congress concerning the reluctance of lobbying
organizations such as the National Head Start Association and
the Children's Defense Fund to condemn the abuses brought to
light in Kansas City and other cities. In one prominent case, a
top NHSA official even was reported to be at the heart of one
of the situations under scrutiny by the media and independent
federal auditors. Subcommittee leaders noted annual funding for
Head Start had nearly doubled since Republicans took control of
the House in the mid-1990s, and expressed concern over growing
evidence that a troubling share of these resources never reach
the teachers and disadvantaged children they are intended to
help. Parents, children, teachers, and taxpayers deserve to
know the billions of dollars being invested every year in the
Head Start program are being used to help prepare disadvantaged
children for kindergarten, Republicans argued.
President Bush called on Congress in 2002 and 2003 to build
on the bipartisan reforms of the No Child Left Behind Act by
passing legislation to improve student results in early
childhood education. The Bush administration noted that many of
the nation's governors, Democratic and Republican alike, had
for years been seeking greater ability to coordinate between
the federally-administered Head Start program and successful
state-run early childhood initiatives that mirror Head Start.
As both the liberal Brookings Institution and the conservative
Heritage Foundation noted in 2003, greater coordination between
Head Start and state programs could strengthen early childhood
learning across the nation.
Subcommittee members expressed support for the
administration's goal of strengthening Head Start's academic
components, describing Head Start as ``a great program that is
capable of achieving even greater results.'' Republicans noted
studies showing that while children in Head Start show
improvement in key subjects, they still leave the program with
knowledge levels far below national averages for U.S. children.
According to official federal data, Republicans noted, Head
Start children lag behind their more affluent peers in crucial
early learning knowledge areas. As a result of this ``readiness
gap,'' Head Start children are not being adequately prepared
for school in key areas of cognitive development shown to be
critical for later school success, they argued. Republicans
also signaled their desire to use the Head Start
reauthorization to address concerns about financial
accountability in the Head Start program.
On May 22, 2003, Subcommittee Chairman Mike Castle (R-DE)
introduced the School Readiness Act (H.R. 2210), a five-year
Head Start reauthorization bill seeking to strengthen the
academic components of Head Start while preserving the
comprehensive services such as health and nutrition that the
program already provides to needy children. The bill included
provisions that would improve accountability in Head Start and
help to prevent some of the reported abuse of Head Start funds
at the local level. The legislation also placed a greater
emphasis than ever on the importance of Head Start teachers,
who Republicans warned were being hurt by a system that was
allowing millions of dollars to be used for questionable
expenditures such as leasing luxury SUVs instead of improving
teacher salaries and classroom conditions. By proposing
increased accountability, revamping some aspects of the current
monitoring program, and allowing a small number of highly-
qualified states a role in program administration and
oversight, the School Readiness Act sought to help ensure Head
Start funds are used for their proper purpose--making sure
disadvantaged children enter kindergarten ready to learn.
Among the key reforms proposed in the School Readiness Act
to strengthen Head Start:
Improving oversight. Many of the problems of
financial misuse facing Head Start centers have developed as a
result of the disconnect between local grantees and the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which oversees
the program. H.R. 2210 proposed allowing a small number of
highly-qualified states to coordinate existing state pre-
kindergarten programs with Head Start, ensuring additional
accountability by allowing state involvement in fiscal
decisions and oversight of local Head Start budgets. With a
smaller pool of grantees to monitor than HHS, states could
discover and correct financial abuse as it happens, rather than
waiting until millions of dollars are misspent, backers argued.
Tighter controls on taxpayer-funded travel. The
School Readiness Act proposed permitting federal Head Start
funds to be used by local grantees for meeting and conference
travel only if similar training or technical assistance is not
available locally.
Unannounced monitoring visits. In order to get an
accurate picture of the situation at each Head Start center,
HHS would have been authorized to conduct unannounced
monitoring visits under the School Readiness Act.
Contracting out monitoring duties. By allowing HHS
to hire outside contractors to monitor local Head Start
agencies and grantees, H.R. 2210 proposed to reduce potential
conflicts of interest. Outside monitors would also have helped
to ameliorate HHS's manpower shortage, and allowed closer
monitoring of more grantees. Contracting out these important
positions would enable federal authorities to catch and correct
any financial misuse earlier, supporters of the bill argued.
Weeding out poor-performing programs. For the
first time, Head Start grantees would have been required to set
program goals for academic achievement and meet them before
their funding was renewed. Supporters argued this would create
greater fairness for successful grantees that deserve to be
rewarded and recognized for their efforts.
Preventing financial abuse was far from the only objective
of the School Readiness Act, however. To close the readiness
gap between Head Start children and their peers and strengthen
Head Start, the School Readiness Act proposed:
Emphasizing ``what works'' in preparing
disadvantaged children for school. The proposal sought to
strengthen Head Start's academic standards by emphasizing
cognitive development and the results of scientifically-based
research in topics critical to children's school readiness
(including language, pre-reading, pre-mathematics, and English
language acquisition). The changes would be similar to those
adopted with strong bipartisan support for President Bush's
Reading First and Early Reading First initiatives, established
in the No Child Left Behind Act for K-12 education.
No new testing. The proposal sought to maintain
current law with respect to regular local assessments of the
academic progress being made by children enrolled in Head
Start. No new testing would have been mandated under the bill.
Local Head Start grantees would have been subject to the same
three-year review (``triennial review'') process as they were
under current law, but would have been evaluated based on
criteria that were more straightforward and reflective of the
progress being made in preparing children for school.
Ensuring local Head Start centers are fairly
evaluated on their performance. The bill sought to eliminate
arbitrary ``performance measures'' in current law that do not
adequately gauge children's progress. These flawed measures,
supporters noted, would be replaced by a more straightforward
system that took into account a child's progress in key areas
relating to school readiness, better enabling parents and
teachers to know how each child was progressing.
Continuing to provide extra help for Head Start
centers identified as underachieving. Under the bill (as under
current law), Head Start centers identified as underachieving
would have qualified for additional assistance. Chronic
underachievers that continued to underachieve even after
receiving additional assistance would have been subject to
review, as under current law.
Improving teacher quality in Head Start. The bill
sought to ensure that a greater number of Head Start teachers
were adequately trained and educated in early childhood
development, particularly in teaching the fundamental skills of
language, pre-reading, and pre-mathematics. The bill would have
required all new Head Start teachers to have had at least an
associate's degree in early childhood education or a related
field within three years, and 50 percent of Head Start teachers
nationwide to have had at least a bachelor's degree by 2008.
Supporters noted these provisions would have helped to meet a
goal set by the National Head Start Association, which called
for 75 percent of all Head Start teachers to have at least an
associate's degree by 2005, and for all Head Start teachers to
have at least an associate's degree by 2008.
Serving more children by reducing HHS expenses.
The bill sought to place a 2% cap on U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) spending for Head Start expenses,
which would have allowed as many as 10,000 more disadvantaged
children to be served by Head Start. The legislation specified
that at least 50% of such funds would have to have been used at
the local level, rather than by federal or state officials.
Preserving all current health and nutrition
services for Head Start children. While the academic components
of Head Start would have been strengthened, all existing health
and nutrition-related components of Head Start would have been
preserved and extended under the School Readiness Act.
Keeping Head Start at the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS). HHS would have continued to
administer the Head Start program under the bill introduced by
Chairman Castle.
Providing incentives for states to maintain or
expand funding for early childhood education. As many states
confronted budget difficulties in 2003, some were reducing (or
considering reducing) their spending on early childhood
education programs. To provide an incentive for states to
continue investing in early childhood education, the School
Readiness Act sought to create a limited demonstration project
by which a limited number of states could have voluntarily
applied for and received the option of coordinating Head Start
programs with their own early childhood education programs, in
exchange for an agreement to maintain or expand funding for
early childhood education. The ``state demo'' would have been
limited to states with a demonstrated investment in early
childhood education and an established, pre-existing preschool
system. Participating states would have been barred from making
funding cuts to early childhood education programs as a
condition of their participation. In addition, a ``hold
harmless'' provision was included guaranteeing funding for Head
Start centers in participating states during the first year of
implementation of the demonstration project. The state
demonstration project in the School Readiness Act Head Start
reflected principles that had been adopted by the bipartisan
National Governors Association (NGA) at its annual meeting in
2002.
Shielding Head Start and other early childhood
education programs against state budget cuts. Supporters noted
the bill would have effectively ``walled off '' early childhood
education funding in states that chose to participate in the
state demonstration program. Under the bill, a state
participating in the demonstration project would have been
required to maintain or expand its financial commitment to
early childhood education to qualify for participation.
Participating states would not have been permittedto use early
childhood funds for anything other than Head Start and early childhood
education.
Increasing Head Start funding. The bill would have
authorized a $202 million increase in funding for Head Start--
to $6.87 billion, meaning Head Start funding would have nearly
doubled during a seven year time period. Funding for Head Start
in FY 1996, the first fiscal year under a Republican-led House,
was approximately $3.8 billion. The bill also sought to
authorize a separate $5 million to provide additional
administrative support to states selected to participate in the
state demonstration program. This money would have been a one-
time allotment to help such states coordinate Head Start with
their state initiatives.
On June 3, 2003, the Education Reform Subcommittee
conducted a hearing to receive public testimony on the School
Readiness Act as introduced. Witnesses at the hearing indicated
they shared Republicans' about the lingering readiness gap
between Head Start children and their peers, and praised the
bill's efforts to give a limited number of states greater
ability to coordinate between Head Start and their own early
childhood programs. Dr. Robert Lawrence, Director of the Head
Start State Collaboration Program for the state of Georgia,
expressed his belief that Georgia's model of collaborative
state-funded preschool programs ``met its goal of preparing
children to enter school with the necessary cognitive,
physical, social and emotional skills and abilities to be
successful.'' Dr. Lawrence also said his state would be
interested in participating in the state demonstration program,
should the opportunity arise, and that the resulting
collaboration would make ``measurable improvements in the lives
of the children and families of our state.''
The School Readiness Act was approved by the full Education
and the Workforce Committee on June 19, 2003. During debate in
Committee, Republicans countered claims by lobbyists and
Democratic opponents that the state demonstration program
included in the bill would create a ``block grant'' that would
``dismantle'' Head Start. Full Committee Chairman John Boehner
(R-OH) read through a list of 16 major requirements in the bill
that any state hoping to participate in the pilot project would
have to meet and agree to maintain in order to even be
considered for being given a greater role in overseeing Head
Start. The requirements virtually ruled out any state that
could not guarantee services for poor children that were as
good as, or better than, the services currently provided under
Head Start, Boehner noted.
Amendments made to the School Readiness Act in Committee
included a number of technical and clarifying changes. An
amendment by Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-MI) proposed to increase the
funding available to serve migrant and seasonal Head Start
programs, including children with limited English proficiency,
by using surplus training and technical assistance funds to
increase the number of slots available to this underserved
population.
A number of late-breaking developments set the stage for
House passage of the School Readiness Act during the summer of
2003.
On July 7, 2003, President Bush gave his first speech on
Head Start reform since the introduction of the School
Readiness Act, during a tour of Highland Park Elementary School
in Landover, MD.
On July 23, 2003, testimony was received in the Senate from
the independent Government Accountability Office (GAO) further
underscoring the need for congressional action to give
qualified states a greater role in Head Start oversight.
Testifying before a hearing of the Senate Committee on Health,
Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP), Marnie S. Shaul, director
of Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues for the
GAO, testified that barriers to collaboration among programs
administered by states and Head Start are impeding the
effectiveness of all programs.
A day later, on July 24, the independent Brookings
Institution released a policy brief calling on Congress to
enact legislation that would allow a limited number of states
to implement President Bush's proposal for reforming Head
Start. The policy brief analyzed the history of early childhood
care and education, and assessed the current state of programs
as contributing to the readiness gap between disadvantaged
children and their more affluent peers. ``The Administration
proposal requires states to find ways to do what Head Start has
not done sufficiently--improve the school readiness of poor
children,'' wrote the report's authors, Brookings' Ron Haskins
and Isabel Sawhill. The Brookings report concluded with an
evaluation of a pilot program similar to that offered in the
School Readiness Act: ``This demonstration plan represents a
reasonable compromise between those who are concerned that the
quality and even existence of Head Start would be jeopardized
by turning responsibility for the program over to states, and
those who believe that states can improve preparation for
school through increased coordination and accountability. Given
the immensity of the task and the modest success achieved thus
far, new ideas are worth trying.''
House Republicans reached agreement July 24, 2003 on a Head
Start amendment that paved the way for floor action on the
School Readiness Act. It was decided that the consensus
agreement would be offered as an amendment in the nature of a
substitute to the Committee-approved version of H.R. 2210 on
the House floor.
``We have listened to concerned Members, Head Start
providers and parents in crafting these improvements to the
bill,'' said Chairman Castle when the agreement was announced.
``This legislation will strengthen Head Start and truly help
these young children by better preparing them for their school
years.''
The consensus agreement:
Maintained the planned $202 million increase in
authorized funding for Head Start for FY 2004, as well as the
planned authorization of an additional $5 million to provide
additional administrative support to states selected to
participate in the eight-state demonstration project.
Set specific spending levels for Head Start for FY
2005 through FY 2008, with no ``cuts'' made to Head Start.
Guaranteed funding for all successful Head Start
centers in states participating in the eight-state
demonstration project for five years (the length of the
reauthorization), instead of the three years proposed in the
legislation passed by the Education and the Workforce Committee
in June. Through this five-year ``hold harmless'' provision,
such states would be allowed to consider funding changes for
such centers only when such centers were failing to meet high
standards for the services they provide to children, just as in
Head Start programs run by the federal government.
Clarified that a state would need to have school
readiness standards in place in FY 2003 in order to qualify for
the demonstration project. A state that currently had such
standards under development, but had not yet completed them,
would not qualify.
Reaffirmed protections in H.R. 2210 that
guaranteed children in Head Start programs in states
participating in the eight-state demonstration project would
receive services equivalent to, or better than, what they are
currently receiving from the federally-administered program.
Specified pilot states could only use federal Head
Start funds to provide Head Start-related services; could not
supplant state or local funds; could not cut state funding for
early childhood programs; and must provide 50 cents in early
childhood funding for every federal Head Start dollar received.
As in the earlier bill, the consensus bill required no new
testing; weeded out poor-performing programs; restored civil
rights protections for faith-based organizations participating
in Head Start, affirming they are not violating federal law
when they hire on a religious basis; and emphasized academic
instruction methods rooted in proven scientific-based research,
Republicans noted.
The consensus agreement reaffirmed a series of guidelines
for states participating in the eight-state demonstration
project:
Early childhood programs would be shielded from
state budget cuts. Pilot states would have to maintain or
increase funding for early childhood programs. States
interested in participating in the eight-state pilot project
would maintain or increase fiscal year 2003 state funding
levels for early childhood education as a condition of
participation. No cuts would be permitted.
States would provide an additional financial
contribution, equal to 5% of their federal Head Start
allotment.
Head Start funds would only be used for Head
Start-related uses.
All comprehensive health and nutritional services
currently provided by Head Start would continue to be provided.
Parental involvement strategies would be
developed.
State teacher quality standards would meet or
exceed the new requirements for Head Start programs
administered by the federal government.
State school readiness standards would be aligned
with state K-12 educational standards, and would meet or exceed
federal Head Start standards.
States would continue to provide services that are
at least as extensive, and are provided to at least as many
low-income children and families, as they did in fiscal year
2003.
On July 25, 2003, following this consensus agreement, the
House of Representatives passed the School Readiness Act
despite the barrage of misleading attacks thrown in its path by
lobbying groups.
``The goal of this legislation is to help all young
children, no matter what their background, have the chance to
reach their potential,'' Chairman Castle said. ``Improving Head
Start by increasing its academic focus will help low-income
children succeed when they enter school. The President was
right to shine a light on this issue, and I am proud that the
House has responded to the challenge to strengthen the Head
Start program and give children a stronger head start in their
lives.''
The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO),
representing the nation's top state education leaders, endorsed
the House-passed School Readiness Act, and publicly took issue
with the National Head Start Association's characterization of
the bill's state demonstration program as a plan to ``block
grant'' Head Start to states.
Following House passage of the bill, attention shifted to
the Senate HELP Committee. Senate Democrats offered a partisan
Head Start reauthorization bill on July 29 that House
Republicans noted would do little to improve direct
coordination between Head Start and successful state-run early
childhood programs--and as such, would do little to close the
school readiness gap that continues to exist between Head Start
children and their more affluent peers. House Republicans also
noted the Senate Democrat bill omitted provisions passed by the
House ensuring that faith-based organizations participating in
Head Start would retain their religious staffing freedom, a
right guaranteed to them in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A
chorus of outside groups--including the Center for Public
Justice, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America,
the Christian Legal Society, the National Association of
Evangelicals, and the Coalition to Preserve Religious Freedom--
criticized the Senate Democrat bill, charging it ``strips away
historic civil liberties of America's religious
organizations.''
During the autumn of 2003, Boehner and Castle requested
that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services provide
detailed information about how federal Head Start dollars were
being used at the local level. The Committee leaders requested
information about Head Start salaries, travel expenses and
other significant expenditures made with federal Head Start
funds that are intended to help teachers prepare disadvantaged
children for kindergarten. HHS officials agreed to comply with
the request.
The National Head Start Association in January 2004 filed a
lawsuit to block the Department from complying with the
congressional request. Committee leaders strongly criticized
the lobbying organization for its action.
``After the recent Head Start scandals involving clear
abuse of funding to line administrators' pockets, I am appalled
at the Head Start Association's refusal to fill out a survey
detailing Directors' salaries,'' said Castle. ``Federal Head
Start funds should be used to help our unfortunate children
prepare for a solid education.''
``As we look to improve Head Start--especially after the
abuse of Head Start funds by administrators--I must ask why the
National Head Start Association believes they should be exempt
from reporting their salaries,'' Castle said. ``This refusal
clearly flies in the face of accountability and reform and
violates the law. If not anything else, they should be exposing
their salaries as a means to attest that they are on a true
path of reform and are not jeopardizing our children's futures
by some larger crusade.''
``This lawsuit is a huge step backwards on the road to
restoring public confidence in the Head Start system, and it is
likely to only deepen the Head Start establishment's growing
credibility problem,'' said Boehner.
``If the abuses reported last year were truly isolated
incidents, it's difficult to understand why Head Start
lobbyists would want to make it difficult for the public to
have the information HHS has requested,'' Boehner said. ``The
public has a right to know the billions of dollars they are
investing annually in Head Start are being used to help
teachers prepare disadvantaged children for kindergarten, not
to lease Mercedes SUVs for local executives.''
The judge in the case agreed, rejecting the NHSA's lawsuit
just days after it was filed.
Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson
responded to the congressional request on May 13, 2004, in a
letter sent to Capitol Hill. The inquiry ``brought additional
management issues to light'' with respect to Head Start,
Thompson said in the letter. Committee leaders welcomed the
Secretary's cooperation with the request, while noting the
information HHS provided as a result of the survey seemed to
raise more questions than it answered.
``The results of this inquiry suggest that while many Head
Start grantees are taking pains to ensure federal Head Start
funds are spent directly on disadvantaged children, others are
not,'' said Boehner. ``Families, teachers, taxpayers, and Head
Start grantees across the nation who are doing good work
deserve to know where the bad apples are. We commend Secretary
Thompson and his Department for taking steps to improve
accountability in the Head Start program, and look forward to
continuing to work with the administration toward this goal for
our nation's most disadvantaged children.''
``I appreciate this report because it helps us to gain a
better understanding of what is being spent on salaries, travel
and other compensation, and displays that these abuses aren't a
uniform occurrence across the nation,'' said Castle. ``The Head
Start agencies who are diverting funding away from
disadvantaged children for their own gain should reform their
practices at once and the other agencies who are truly putting
our children first must continue to serve as an example. I will
continue to work with my colleagues to push reform legislation
to reign in inappropriate spending and to help states become
more involved in decision making at these centers.''
The results of the HHS inquiry revealed a wide disparity in
Head Start spending practices by the nation's largest Head
Start grantees. While many local grantees appear to be working
to ensure federal Head Start funds are spent directly on
preparing disadvantaged children for kindergarten, Republicans
noted, others appear to be spending unusually large percentages
of their Head Start funds on meeting and conference travel,
and/or billing Head Start for lavish salary and compensation
packages for their top executives. HHS asked Head Start
grantees to self-check and confirm the data in the report
before it was transmitted to Congress.
A summary of the findings reported to Congress by HHS in
May 2004:
Disparities in travel expenditures. Executives of
25 local Head Start grantees collectively spent $8.9 million on
meeting and conference travel in fiscal year 2002. While many
grantees spent only a small fraction of their annual budgets on
travel, others spent between 20 and nearly 40 percent of their
annual budgets on such travel, billing it to Head Start as
training or technical assistance expenses.
High salaries & compensation for executives. More
than a dozen local Head Start executive directors nationwide
received a larger annual salary in fiscal year 2002 than the
U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, whose agency
oversees the entire Head Start program, currently receives
($171,900). While some local grantees used Head Start funds to
pay only a small fraction of the salary and compensation
packages for their executives, other grantees billed Head Start
for much or nearly all the annual amount. In at least three
cases, Head Start executives received an annual compensation in
excess of $230,000, and 69% or more of that compensation was
charged to Head Start.
New questions about executive perks. The HHS
report did not disclose the value of other ``hidden'' perks
executives may be receiving, such as the use of vehicles leased
with Head Start funds meant for disadvantaged children.
New questions about executive travel. The HHS
report did not disclose the locations to which grantees
traveled.
New questions about administrative compensation.
The report to Congress disclosed only a partial picture of the
extent to which federal Head Start funds are used by local
grantees to pay administrative salaries, because it provides
information only on the salaries and compensation of the top-
ranking Head Start executives at each operation. The report
does not identify grantees that are paying large federally-
funded salaries to a number of individuals with a range of
different titles, for example.
On November 25, 2003, along with Senators Judd Gregg (R-NH)
and Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Boehner and Castle requested that
the independent Government Accountability Office (GAO) review
current Head Start accounting practices and make
recommendations, if needed, to improve the fiscal management
and accountability of local grantees. GAO is expected to
complete its report in early 2005, and the recommendations in
the study could have a significant impact on efforts to
reauthorize the Head Start program during the 109th Congress.
IMPROVING RESULTS AND LOCAL CONTROL IN VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL
EDUCATION
As part of ongoing efforts to reform American education,
the Education Reform Subcommittee in the 108th Congress also
began efforts to reauthorize vocational and technical education
programs under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical
Education Act, often known simply as the Perkins program.
On April 27, 2004, the Education Reform Subcommittee kicked
off reauthorization efforts with a hearing examining vocational
and technical educational opportunities for secondary and
postsecondary students. A second hearing was held on May 4,
2004, which looked in greater detail at how these programs
could be strengthened to better integrate academic learning
with vocational and technical education skills to prepare
students for postsecondary education or other opportunities.
``Progress has been made since the 1998 reauthorization of
the Perkins Act in modernizing vocational and technical
education programs by creating an initial performance
accountability system and strengthening the focus on academic
performance among participating students,'' said Subcommittee
Chairman Mike Castle (R-DE) at the April 27 hearing. ``Whether
a student progresses directly to the workforce, or goes on to
an institution of higher education, it is imperative they have
a strong academic base.''
``However, we know that the education supported through the
Perkins Act needs to reflect the changing reality of our
dynamic economy. Technology and economic competition are
combining in unprecedented ways to change education and
redefine the American workplace. Unlike jobs a half-century
ago, many of today's jobs demand strong academic and technical
skills, technological proficiency, and education beyond high
school,'' continued Castle. ``Our challenge during
reauthorization of this Act will be to ensure that all students
pursuing vocational and technical education are academically
prepared to make decisions affecting their future after
graduating from high school.''
On June 3, 2004, Rep. Castle introduced the Vocational and
Technical Education for the Future Act (H.R. 4496), a bill that
sought to strengthen and renew vocational and technical
education programs. The bill proposed reforms to help states
better utilize federal funds for secondary and postsecondary
vocational education programs, increase accountability and
emphasize student achievement, and strengthen opportunities for
coordination between secondary and postsecondary vocational and
technical education. It also continued to move away from the
so-called ``School to Work'' initiatives of the past, and
solidified the position that local communities should have the
final say when it comes to decisions about education for their
students.
In a hearing held on June 15, 2004, witnesses told the
Education Reform Subcommittee the Vocational and Technical
Education for the Future Act would improve educational
opportunities for students, and better serve them in a changing
education and workforce environment.
``[The Vocational and Technical Education for the Future
Act] is critical to America's continued global competitiveness.
The act builds on the rigorous and challenging academic
foundation established by the No Child Left Behind Act and
supports the development of high quality essential technical
skills,'' said Dr. Robert Sommers, CEO of Butler Technology and
Career Development Schools in Ohio.
``Fewer and fewer jobs are available to individuals that
are either academically ill-prepared or technically unskilled.
Everywhere, the academic expectations are rising and so are the
technical knowledge and skill requirements,'' continued
Sommers.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics,
66 percent of all public secondary schools have one or more
vocational and technical education programs with approximately
96 percent of high school students taking at least one
vocational and technical course during their secondary studies.
Vocational and technical education is an important
postsecondary option as well. More than 2,600 postsecondary
sub-baccalaureate institutions, such as community colleges,
technical institutes, skill centers, and other public and
private colleges, also offer vocational and technical
education.
Reforms made to the Perkins Act in 1998 increased the focus
on academic and technical skills, and on ensuring students
complete their programs and transition into successful
employment or further education. The Vocational and Technical
Education for the Future Act aimed to build on the 1998
reforms, proposing to increase the emphasis on accountability
and student academic achievement and update programs to reflect
the changing needs of America's education and workforce
systems. To improve educational opportunities and strengthen
vocational and technical education, the bill proposed:
Helping states better utilize federal funds for
secondary and postsecondary vocational education programs;
Increasing accountability and emphasize student
achievement; and
Strengthening opportunities for coordination
between secondary and postsecondary vocational and technical
education, including the creation of model sequences of
courses.
An amendment offered by Rep. Tom Osborne (R-NE) during
Subcommittee consideration of the bill and approved by voice
vote would have allowed vocational and technical education
programs to provide entrepreneurial education and activities,
strengthening opportunities for students and encouraging
programs to help students successfully participate in
postsecondary education or other opportunities.
The Vocational and Technical Education for the Future Act
was approved by the Education Reform Subcommittee on July 14,
2004 by voice vote, with bipartisan support. The bill also
cleared the full Education and the Workforce Committee by voice
vote on July 21, 2004.
ENHANCING FINANCIAL LITERACY, HELPING STUDENTS PLAN FOR THE FUTURE
The Education Reform Subcommittee in the 108th Congress
began to look at the status of financial literacy among youth,
holding a hearing on October 28, 2003 to learn about
currentefforts by the public and private sector to improve the
financial literacy of the nation's students. The hearing focused on how
states and local school districts are helping elementary and secondary
students learn basic financial management skills and highlighted
individual programs run by public and private organizations that strive
to provide students with a solid financial education.
``Today, our nation's youth are bombarded with a multitude
of financial options at an increasingly young age, yet many are
ill-equipped to make informed decisions about financial
matters,'' said Subcommittee Chairman Mike Castle (R-DE).
``Various public and private organizations have developed
programs to promote public knowledge of basic finances,'' said
Castle. ``Many of these organizations are working with
elementary and secondary students to provide them with a strong
education in money management and provide teacher training on
how to integrate basic financial education principles into
curricula.''
As the financial world has become increasingly complex,
consumers have been faced with a growing number of decisions
about their financial future, Subcommittee members noted.
``Make no mistake, personal finance through economics and
financial literacy is the key to helping our youth avoid the
pitfalls of foreclosure, predatory lending and credit
counseling as adults. It is our duty to help them succeed in
today's increasingly sophisticated world of finance,'' said
Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL), who introduced legislation in the
108th Congress seeking to identify the best practices in
teaching financial literacy programs.
The need for financial education has never been clearer,
testified Bob Duvall, CEO of the National Council on Economic
Education.
``We must prepare our students with the basics of economic
and financial literacy so that they can succeed in life,''
Duvall said. ``This literacy, together with reading and
mathematics, is key to home ownership, managing credit,
financing higher education, saving for retirement, and
citizenship.''
The U.S. Department of the Treasury worked with the U.S.
Department of Education during President Bush's first term to
encourage schools to integrate basic financial education into
their reading and math curriculum in accordance with the goals
of the No Child Left Behind Act. During the 108th Congress,
Subcommittee members noted that the No Child Left Behind Act
includes several provisions that encourage improved financial
literacy. For example, the law allows local school districts to
use Local Innovative Education Programs funds to support
activities that promote consumer, economic, and personal
finance education. NCLB also contains the Excellence in
Economic Education program that authorizes the Secretary of
Education to award a grant to a non-profit entity to foster
financial literacy through a variety of activities. In an
effort to examine the topic of financial literacy, the U.S.
Department of Education held a Forum on Economic Education and
Financial Literacy on January 17, 2003.
SUPPORTING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001
(NCLB)
On September 20, 2004, Education Reform Subcommittee
Chairman Mike Castle (R-DE) conducted a Subcommittee site visit
to study progress being made in Delaware to implement the No
Child Left Behind Act. The site visit featured the testimony of
William Sokol, a retired public school teacher and active
member of the National Education Association (NEA).
``The No Child Left Behind law has had a larger positive
impact on public education than any other program over the span
of my 39 years of teaching. The beauty of NCLB is that it is
helping all students at all levels in all subjects,'' wrote Mr.
Sokol in his testimony.
Improvements are being made in public schools, and they are
attributable to both the NCLB law itself and the good work of
dedicated teachers and school administrators who have been
supported by it, Sokol said.
Mr. Sokol retired at the end of the 2003-2004 school year
after 39 years teaching Chemistry at Newark High School. In
addition to his duties at Newark, Mr. Sokol served as an
Adjunct Assistant Professor at Delaware State University in
1980, and as a summer Chemistry Instructor at the University of
Delaware in 1985 and 1989. In addition to being recognized by
students for his contributions to their achievement, Mr. Sokol
was honored by the American Chemical Society in 1985 as the
Chemistry Teacher of the Year and by the Christina School
District in 2004 for making ``Outstanding Contributions to
Education.'' He was also selected as a founding member of the
University of Delaware's ``Academy of Master Teachers'' in
2002.
In addition to Delaware site visit, the Subcommittee on
Education Reform conducted two field hearings to study the
progress states and local school districts are making in
implementing the No Child Left Behind Act. A more detailed
account of each field hearing is included in the main Committee
section.
PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO LOW-INCOME FAMILIES
In addition to the education reform activities undertaken
by Chairman Mike Castle's (R-DE) Subcommittee in the 108th
Congress, the Subcommittee also examined programs in its
jurisdiction created to provide assistance to low-income
families.
On July 8, 2003, the Education Reform Subcommittee held a
hearing to examine two federal block-grant programs, the Low
Income Heating Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and the Community
Services Block Grants (CSBG), which deliver aid to low-income
families and communities. Led by Chairman Castle, the
Subcommittee listened to a panel of experts discuss the
benefits of the two programs, as well as what improvements
might be made.
LIHEAP provides federal funds for states and localities to
operate home energy assistance programs for low-income
households. The program also authorizes a separate emergency
fund that may be used at the discretion of the President in
response to a natural disaster or other emergency need. CSBG is
a federal anti-poverty block grant that funds a state-
administered network of more than 1,100 public and private
groups that deliver social services to low-income Americans.
The program funds groups that assist individuals with
employment, housing and emergency food services.
On September 5, 2003, Rep. Tom Osborne (R-NE), vice
chairman of the Subcommittee, introduced legislation (H.R.
3030) to reauthorize the Community Services Block Grant
program. The bill proposed extending the life of the anti-
poverty programs under CSBG until at least 2009, while
strengthening accountability and preserving current law
protections for faith-based organizations using CSBG funds.
H.R. 3030 called for new provisions to ensure quality and
accountability in the block grants, such as requiring states to
take swift action to correct or defund persistently low-
performing grantees, insisting that Community Action Agencies
(CAAs) develop and meet locally-determined goals, in addition
to state goals and performance measures, and requiring states
to justify the continued funding of low-performing local
groups. The bill also kept the funding for all CSBG programs,
including discretionary programs, at current levels.
``The CSBG program is an essential tool in meeting the
unique needs of low-income communities across the country,''
said Subcommittee Chairman Castle during consideration of the
measure. ``These programs are especially vital because they
often serve as a conduit in assisting low-income individuals
and families in becoming self-sufficient. From community to
community you may find different services, but they are all
working toward the same goal.''
H.R. 3030 was approved by the full Education and the
Workforce Committee on October 1, 2003, after the Committee
defeated an amendment that would have stripped faith-based
organizations of their right to control the character of their
organizations through their hiring practices. The right of
religious charities to make employment decisions based on
religion was granted to such groups by an amendment to the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court
in multiple decisions, and signed into law by former President
Bill Clinton in 1998, during the last reauthorization of CSBG.
H.R. 3030 was approved by the House of Representatives on
February 4, 2004.
II. Hearings Held by the Subcommittee
108th Congress, First Session
March 6, 2003--Hearing on ``Head Start: Working Towards
Improved Results for Children'' (108-5)
March 13, 2003--Hearing on ``IDEA, Focusing on Improving
Results for Children with Disabilities'' (108-9)
May 6, 2003--Hearing on ``Protecting Children: The Use of
Medication in Our Nation's Schools and H.R. 1170, Child
Medication Safety Act of 2003'' (108-14)
June 3, 2003--Hearing on H.R. 2210, ``School Readiness Act
of 2003'' (108-17)
July 8, 2003--Hearing on ``LIHEAP & CSGB: Providing
Assistance to Low-Income Families'' (108-23)
July 16, 2003--Hearing on ``Food for Thought: How to
Improve Child Nutrition Programs'' (108-27)
September 29, 2003--Field hearing on ``Keeping Schools
Safe--the Implementation of No Child Left Behind's Persistently
Dangerous Schools Provisions'' in Denver, Colorado (108-34)
October 20, 2003--Field Hearing on ``No Child Left Behind's
Education Choice Provisions: Are States and School Districts
Giving Parents the Information They Need?'' in Taylors, South
Carolina (108-38)
October 28, 2003--Hearing on ``Financial Literacy
Education: What Do Students Need to Know to Plan for the
Future?'' (108-39)
108th Congress, Second Session
February 11, 2004--Hearing on ``Preventing Underage
Drinking: What Works'' (108-42)
February 12, 2004--Hearing on ``Encouraging Healthy Choices
for Healthy Children'' (108-43)
April 27, 2004--Hearing on ``Examining Success in
Vocational Education'' (108-53)
May 4, 2004--Hearing on ``Strengthening Vocational and
Technical Education'' (108-56)
June 15, 2004--Hearing on ``H.R. 4496, the Vocational and
Technical Education for the Future Act'' (108-62)
III. Markups Held by the Subcommittee
108th Congress, First Session
April 2, 2003--H.R. 1350, Improving Education Results for
Children With Disabilities Act of 2003 was ordered favorably
reported, as amended, to the Full Committee by voice vote.
June 12, 2003--H.R. 2210, School Readiness Act of 2003 was
ordered favorably reported, as amended, to the Full Committee
(11-9).
108th Congress, Second Session
March 4, 2004--H.R. 3873, The Child Nutrition Improvement
and Integrity Act was ordered favorably reported, as amended,
to the Full Committee by voice vote.
July 14, 2004--H.R. 4496, Vocational and Technical
Education for the Future 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.... 173
Total Number of Hearings.......................................... 14
Field......................................................... 2
Joint With Other Committees................................... 0
Total Number of Subcommittee Markup Sessions...................... 4
Total Number of Bills Reported From Subcommittee.................. 4
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SELECT EDUCATION
I. Summary of Activities
In the 108th Congress, the Subcommittee on Select Education
held numerous hearings and approved several important pieces of
legislation to strengthen higher education, protect vulnerable
children, and maintain strong oversight over the financial
management at the U.S. Department of Education.
The Select Education Subcommittee, chaired in the 108th
Congress by Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), has jurisdiction over
programs and services that provide care and treatment for
certain at-risk youth, including child abuse prevention and
child adoption. In addition, the Subcommittee oversees several
important higher education programs, including international
and foreign language studies; graduate programs; and oversight
of programs for minority serving institutions, including
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Hispanic
Serving Institutions (HSIs), and Tribally Controlled Colleges
and Universities (TCCUs).
Under the leadership of Subcommittee Chairman Hoekstra, the
House passed, and President Bush signed, major bills in the
108th Congress to strengthen protections and services for at-
risk youth. Hoekstra's Subcommittee approved legislation
reauthorizing several laws to prevent child abuse and
strengthen adoption opportunities. The Subcommittee saw
enactment of the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act (H.R.
14), which reauthorized the Child Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act; the Family Violence Prevention Services Act; the
Abandoned Infants Assistance Act; and the Adoption
Opportunities Act.
President Bush also signed the Runaway, Homeless, and
Missing Children Protection Act (H.R. 1925) into law, another
important legislative achievement that strengthens protections
and services for vulnerable youth. That bill was authored by
Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA), and was the first substantive
legislation authored by a freshman Representative signed into
law in the 108th Congress.
The Museum and Library Services Act (H.R. 13), another
priority of the Select Education Subcommittee, was also signed
by President Bush in 2003. The legislation, introduced by
Subcommittee Chairman Hoekstra, provides federal support for
libraries and museums in coordination with state, local, and
private efforts. Enactment of the bill was a longstanding
priority for the Education and the Workforce Committee, with
similar legislation having passed the Committee with bipartisan
support in the 107th Congress.
As part of a comprehensive effort by the full Education and
the Workforce Committee to strengthen and renew postsecondary
education programs under the Higher Education Act (HEA), the
Select Education Subcommittee also approved two bills aimed at
strengthening graduate studies, and enhancing opportunities for
international and foreign language studies that have taken on
increased importance in the post-9/11 era. While the bills were
not acted upon by the Senate, similar legislation is expected
to be introduced by Committee members early in the 109th
Congress as part of larger efforts to reauthorize the Higher
Education Act.
Following are more comprehensive details of the activities
of the Subcommittee on Select Education in the 108th Congress
(January 2003-December 2004).
REVAMPING INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION
As part of a comprehensive effort to strengthen and renew
postsecondary education under the Higher Education Act (HEA),
the Select Education Subcommittee investigated federally-funded
international and foreign language studies programs at
America's colleges and universities. As Congress prepared to
reauthorize the programs, funded under Title VI of the HEA, the
Select Education Subcommittee undertook the vital task of
examining what role these programs would play moving forward
into the 21st Century, with international knowledge playing a
more important role than ever in the post-September 11 era.
On June 19, 2003, the Select Education Subcommittee held a
hearing to examine questions of bias in the international and
foreign language programs. The panel, chaired for the hearing
by Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA), heard testimony from scholars,
administrators, and education experts on questions about the
teaching and scholarship practices in programs funded by Title
VI of the Higher Education Act. Media accounts had detailed
questions of bias in the programs, even suggesting that the
teachings and practices could undermine American foreign
policy. The Subcommittee called the hearing to question
stakeholders on both sides of the issue, and to evaluate the
methods and purposes of the programs as the House prepared to
reauthorize the Higher Education Act.
Title VI of the Higher Education Act authorizes funding for
international education and foreign language studies, including
grants used to establish area studies and foreign language
centers. Though the purpose of such programs is to expand
American understanding and appreciation of foreign cultures and
languages, some critics charge that the programs are
fundamentally biased, and contain limited international
perspectives, thereby stifling opportunities for open dialogue
and learning.
``Title VI programs reflect the priority placed by the
federal government on diplomacy, national security, and trade
competitiveness. International studies and education have
become an increasingly important and relevant topic of
conversation and consideration in higher education,'' said Rep.
Gingrey at the hearing.
``However, with mounting global tensions, some programs
under the Higher Education Act that support foreign language
and area studies centers have recently attracted national
attention and concern due to the perception of their teachings
and policies,'' continued Gingrey.
Dr. Stanley Kurtz, a research fellow at Stanford
University's Hoover Institution, testified on his scholarly
research and experience with Title VI programs, and what he
described as abuse of these federally-funded programs.
``For some time now, in my writings on National Review
Online, and in The Weekly Standard, I have criticized scholars
who study the Middle East (and other areas of the world) for
abusing Title VI of the Higher Education Act. Title VI-funded
programs in Middle Eastern Studies (and other area studies)
tend to purvey extreme and one-sided criticisms of American
foreign policy,'' said Kurtz.
``To see this bias at work, consider the most influential
theoretical perspective in area studies today. Post-colonial
theory was founded by Columbia University professor of
comparative literature, Edward Said. The core premise of post-
colonial theory is that it is immoral for a scholar to put his
knowledge of foreign languages and cultures at the service of
American power,'' continued Kurtz. ``Said has condemned the
United States, which he calls, `a stupid bully,' as a nation
with a `history of reducing whole peoples, countries, and even
continents to ruin by nothing short of holocaust.' Said has
also called for the International Criminal Court to prosecute
Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, and General Wesley Clark as
war criminals. According to Said, the genocidal actions of
these American leaders make Slobodan Milosevic himself look
like `a rank amateur in viciousness.' ''
Title VI programs should not exclusively teach pro-American
perspectives, but should include a broad range of ideas to
ensure foreign studies are providing students with exposure to
multiple outlooks and varied viewpoints, Kurtz noted in his
testimony.
``Let me state clearly, however, that I am not arguing that
authors like Edward Said ought to be banned from Title VI-
funded courses. My concern is that Title VI-funded centers too
seldom balance readings from Edward Said and his like-minded
colleagues with readings from authors who support American
foreign policy,'' said Kurtz. ``[U]nless steps are taken to
balance university faculties with members who both support and
oppose American foreign policy, the very purpose of free speech
and academic freedom will have been defeated.''
Members of the Select Education Subcommittee agreed with
the assessment that federally-funded international and foreign
language studies programs are more important than ever, and the
panel's chairman, Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), introduced
legislation to revamp the programs to fulfill the charge of
providing students with international and foreign language
knowledge--a task Hoekstra noted has taken on greater
importance at a time when America is more dependent than ever
on solid international leadership in issues from security to
diplomacy, and from scholarship to business and industry.
On September 17, 2003, the Select Education Subcommittee
approved Hoekstra's bill, the International Studies in Higher
Education Act (H.R. 3077). The bill was approved by voice vote,
with bipartisan support.
``Title VI of the Higher Education Act provides support for
a critically important group of programs at colleges and
universities which work to advance knowledge of world regions,
encourage the study of foreign languages, and train Americans
to have the international expertise and understanding to
fulfill pressing national security needs,'' said Hoekstra.
``The International Studies in Higher Education Act would
update the programs under title VI to reflect our national
security needs in the post-9/11 era, as well as the current
international climate.''
The International Studies in Higher Education Act called
for the creation of a new International Education Advisory
Board in consultation with homeland security agencies for all
Title VI programs to increase accountability by providing
advice, counsel, and recommendations to Congress on
international education issues for higher education. In a memo
to members of the Select Education Subcommittee, Stanley
Kurtz--who testified before the Subcommittee in July 2003--
explained the importance of this proposal.
``That bill has made important changes that will bring
greater balance to the Title VI area studies program and ensure
that it contributes to our national security preparedness,''
said Kurtz. ``Congress has significantly increased funding for
Title VI since
9/11 in the interest of producing recruits for our defense and
intelligence agencies who are well versed in the languages and
cultures of regions with strategic importance to the United
States. Representation by members of national security agencies
such as Defense and NSA will assure that, no matter which party
is in power, the minimum interests of these agencies in
recruiting knowledgeable students are met.''
In addition to the advisory board, the International
Studies in Higher Education Act included additional changes to
programs funded under Title VI of the Higher Education Act
intended to help the programs reach their full potential to
enrich student learning and develop trained experts with the
skills to protect America's national interests and assist with
national and international security.
As mentioned in the Full Committee activities section of
this report, the International Studies in Higher Education Act
was approved by the House of Representatives on October 21,
2003. The bill was approved by the House on a voice vote, with
no recorded opposition. While the bill was not acted upon by
the Senate, similar legislation is expected to be included in a
comprehensive reauthorization of the Higher Education Act to be
introduced by House Republicans early in the 109th Congress.
RENEWING GRADUATE EDUCATION PROGRAMS
The Select Education Subcommittee oversees various programs
supporting America's colleges and universities, including
federal programs to support graduate level education. In
conjunction with ongoing efforts to reauthorize the Higher
Education Act as a whole, the SelectEducation Subcommittee held
a hearing and advanced legislation to improve graduate education
programs and ensure they continue to play a valuable role in education
at all levels.
On September 9, 2003, witnesses before the Select Education
Subcommittee testified on the importance of graduate education
programs under Title VII of the Higher Education Act. The
hearing explored the vital role graduate programs play in
fostering innovation and encouraging in-depth study, as well as
the role of graduate education in improving education at all
levels, from K-12 to postsecondary and beyond.
``With the passage of the Higher Education Act in 1965,
Congress made great strides in highlighting the importance of
postsecondary education. For the first time, many were afforded
the opportunity to pursue their dreams of earning a college
degree. Countless numbers of students have taken advantage of
these programs, and as a result, our nation has enjoyed the
benefits of a more educated society,'' said Rep. Jon Porter (R-
NV), who chaired the hearing. ``As we enter the 21st Century,
the need for advanced education is becoming increasingly more
crucial to successfully maintaining our place in the
technologically-advanced economy. Now, more than ever, our
citizens are obtaining graduate degrees in order to gain more
expertise in their field of study. Currently, nearly 2 million
students attend one of over 1,800 graduate school programs in
our country. And this number is on the rise.''
``Graduate education produces immeasurable benefits for our
nation. Not only do these programs enrich our citizenry, but
they also nurture discovery and innovation that will someday
lead to medical and technological advancements. Graduate
programs also train the next generation of researchers,
engineers, doctors, lawyers, poets, and professors. These
individuals will be vitally important in preparing the United
States to meet the challenges of the future,'' continued
Porter.
``Graduate programs in the United States are respected and
emulated worldwide. Our graduate institutions attract the best
and brightest students domestically and overseas. Our nation's
unique system of combining graduate education with research
strengthens the American education system and serves as the
backbone for our nation's leadership in science and
technology,'' testified Dr. Earl Lewis, graduate school dean at
the University of Michigan.
Title VII of the Higher Education Act authorizes three
graduate fellowship programs: The Graduate Assistance in Areas
of National Need (GAANN) program, the Jacob K. Javits
Fellowship program, and the Thurgood Marshall Legal Educational
Opportunity program. Collectively, these fellowship programs
encourage students to advance their knowledge in scientific and
technical fields, the arts and humanities, and legal studies by
providing financial assistance as well as support services to
those displaying academic excellence in their field of study.
Congress appropriates nearly $45 million annually to assist
these students in pursuing their goals.
These fellowships not only encourage advanced study, but
play an additional important role of creating a pipeline of
highly qualified professionals prepared to train the teachers
of tomorrow for K-12 education. Dr. Blandina Cardenas, dean of
the College of Education and Human Development at the
University of Texas at San Antonio, described this pipeline of
highly qualified teachers, and explained the important role of
graduate programs in improving education at all levels.
``As Dean of the College of Education and Human
Development, I have the responsibility to ensure that we are
clearly focused on the needs in our K-12 schools.
Superintendents consistently advise us that their most pressing
need is for teachers in math, science, bilingual, ESL and dual
language education and special education,'' said Cardenas.
``The need for highly qualified teachers in these
specializations is confirmed in state and national data. It is
pervasive and growing. It will not get better until there is a
significant investment in producing the highly qualified
education faculty to train teachers in these fields.
``In the three years that I have been responsible for
hiring faculty for our college, I have come to the conclusion
that the shortages in specialized teachers for the nation's
schools track directly to the shortage of qualified faculty in
these fields. The pipeline for producing highly qualified
classroom teachers in math, science, bilingual education and
special education will remain grossly inadequate for as long as
the pipeline for producing faculty in these fields remains
unattended,'' continued Cardenas.
Dr. William Allen, director of the Public Policy and
Administration program at Michigan State University, echoed Dr.
Cardenas' sentiments regarding the impact graduate education
has on the availability of trained, highly qualified K-12
teachers. He spoke specifically of the decline in study of
traditional American history and western civilization.
``You should note that, parallel to a decline in university
requirements for undergraduates, American higher education has
also experienced a significant decline in the preparation of
professors and teachers in those areas and specifically
pursuing the understanding of free institutions. While it is
true that we continue to prepare graduate students of history
and related disciplines, such as political science, such
training has tended to reflect valuable but far more
specialized concentration on advances in historical
understanding and current policy alternatives,'' said Allen.
``A direct consequence of this trend has been an erosion of the
training of professors--and therefore K-12 teachers--to
preserve broad familiarity with facts, texts, and significant
dates affecting our civic existence.''
The federal investment in graduate education provides many
benefits to American society, from breakthroughs in research
and advanced technology to the faculty needed to prepare highly
qualified teachers for K-12 education to fulfill the goal set
forth in the No Child Left Behind Act to have a highly
qualified teacher in every public school classroom by the 2005-
2006 school year, noted Porter. By building upon the success of
these programs, and encouraging study in fields of national
need, success at all levels of education can be achieved,
Porter concluded.
Based in large part on the findings of that hearing, Select
Education Subcommittee Chairman Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) introduced
legislation in 2003 that sought to strengthen graduate
education programs to ensure students can pursue graduate
studies in high-priority subject areas, including math,
science, and special education. On September 17, 2003,
Hoekstra's bill, the Graduate Opportunities in Higher Education
Act (H.R. 3076), was approved by the Subcommittee by voice
vote, with bipartisan support.
``As we enter the 21st Century, the need for advanced
education is becoming increasingly more critical to
successfully maintaining our place in a technologically-
advanced economy. Now, more than ever, our citizens are
obtaining graduate degrees in order to gain more knowledge and
expertise in their field of study,'' said Hoekstra during
Subcommittee consideration of the bill.
``Graduate programs, while important for their role in
higher education, also play an essential yet often overlooked
role in K-12 education. It is graduate programs that train
individuals to become faculty at our institutions of higher
education, who in turn, will train the elementary and secondary
teachers of tomorrow. The No Child Left Behind Act requires a
highly-qualified teacher in every public school classroom by
the 2005-2006 school year. In order to accomplish this, we must
ensure the faculty in our teacher colleges are prepared to meet
this challenge,'' continued Hoekstra.
The Graduate Opportunities in Higher Education Act
recognized the role graduate education plays in education at
all levels, and for that reason would have placed a priority on
subject areas facing particular shortages. Consistent with H.R.
438, the Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act approved by the
House in July of 2003, H.R. 3076 would have placed an emphasis
on subject areas facing the greatest shortages, including math,
science, and special education. In addition, the legislation
would have included a priority for the study of advanced
linguistics to ensure teachers can be prepared to meet the
needs of students with limited English proficiency (LEP).
The bill received widespread support throughout the
education community, particularly for the emphasis it placed on
creating a pipeline of highly qualified teachers for education
at all levels.
``The National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD) is
pleased to support H.R. 3076, The Graduate Opportunities in
Higher Education Act,'' said James Wendorf of the National
Center for Learning Disabilities in a letter to Subcommittee
Chairman Hoekstra. ``We thank you for introducing language that
continues to support the critical investment in providing
information and technical assistance to disability support
service personnel and faculty in supporting students with
disabilities in our nation's colleges and universities through
the Demonstration Projects to Ensure Students With Disabilities
Receive a Quality Higher Education. This support will work to
achieve better outcomes for students with disabilities by
embracing our newest knowledge on how to best prepare to serve
them in the higher education setting.''
``We believe the key to fully implementing the No Child
Left Behind Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) is the provision of a highly qualified teacher for
every child--including highly qualified special education
teachers. Until we address the critical shortage of special
education faculty, we will not be able to address the critical
shortage of special education teachers,'' said a letter from
the Council on Exceptional Children. ``HR 3076 provides hope
that we can turn this situation around. We strongly support the
bill's requirement that the production of special education
faculty become a priority for the Graduate Assistance in Areas
of National Need (GAANN) program and will work with you to do
all that we can to ensure its enactment into law.''
As mentioned in the Full Committee activities section of
this report, the Graduate Opportunities in Higher Education Act
was approved by the House of Representatives on October 21,
2003. The bill was approved by the House on a voice vote, with
no recorded opposition. While the bill was not acted upon by
the Senate, similar legislation is expected to be included in a
comprehensive reauthorization of the Higher Education Act to be
introduced by Committee members early in the 109th Congress.
SUPPORTING MINORITY SERVING INSTITUTIONS
Select Education Subcommittee Chairman Pete Hoekstra (R-MI)
has been a longtime leader in addressing the needs of America's
minority serving institutions--including Historically Black
Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Hispanic Serving
Institutions (HSIs)--as these institutions are a fundamental
component of America's higher education system.
For years, a GOP Task Force led by Hoekstra and other
Republicans has been working with HBCU presidents and
organizations to forge a bold ``action agenda'' to help provide
the resources they need to educate their students. And to
recognize the unique contributions of Hispanic Serving
Institutions, Hoekstra held a field hearing in Edinburg, Texas
on October 6, 2003 to hear from representatives of a number of
HSIs. Hoekstra's leadership also helped shape reforms to
strengthen minority serving institutions as part of
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Those reforms are
discussed in-depth in this report along with the activities of
the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness.
At the field hearing, which was attended by Hoekstra and
the Subcommittee's Ranking Minority Member Rep. Ruben Hinojosa
(D-TX) and held at the University of Texas-Pan American,
witnesses testified on the critical role Hispanic Serving
Institutions play, particularly in their capacity to serve
underrepresented populations.
``Hispanic Serving Institutions are vital components of the
higher education equation. There are currently more than 200
HSIs in United States, and the number of HSI institutions grows
each year. While comprising only 5 percent of all institutions
of postsecondary education, HSIs enroll 49 percent of Hispanic-
American students,'' said Hoekstra.
``Not only do HSIs improve access to higher education for
Hispanic Americans, but they also are committed to providing
academic excellence to low-income and disadvantaged students.
HSIs enroll and graduate thousands of impressive students each
year, and enrollments at these institutions are climbing.
According to the U.S. Department of Education, the enrollment
of Hispanic American students in college is growing twice as
quickly as college enrollments in general,'' continued
Hoekstra.
Witnesses from several Hispanic Serving Institutions in the
region appeared before the Subcommittee to discuss the
challenges and successes of these institutions as they expand
higher education opportunities, particularly for Hispanic and
low-income students.
The Higher Education Act, the primary law governing federal
higher education programs, provides support to HSIs through
numerous channels, including funding targeted specifically to
these types of institutions. Support for these institutions has
grown tremendously in recent years. As of FY 2005, the
Republican-led Congress has increased funding for HSIs by more
than 780 percent in just ten years--from $10.8 million in 1995
to $95 million in 2005.
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and
Historically Black Graduate Institutions have received
similarly strong support under Republican leadership. Since
Republicans took control of the House in 1995, funding for
HBCUs has increased by nearly 120 percent, and funding for
Historically Black Professional and Graduate Institutions has
increased by 196 percent. For FY 2005, HBCUs received $239
million and the Historically Black Graduate Institutions
program received $58 million.
PROTECTING MISSING, EXPLOITED, AND RUNAWAY YOUTH
To protect some of America's most vulnerable children, the
Select Education Subcommittee in the 108th Congress held a
hearing and later approved legislation to assist at-risk
children, including missing, abducted, and sexually exploited
children, as well as runaway and homeless youth and their
families.
On April 29, 2003, the Subcommittee heard testimony about
the services provided to at-risk youth under the Missing
Children's Assistance Act and the Runaway and Homeless Youth
Act.
``Our desire is to strengthen these programs in order to
address the needs of these at-risk children. We must continue
to support the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children and its efforts to locate and recover missing children
and help prevent child abductions and sexual exploitation.
Additionally, we wish to ensure the protection of runaway and
homeless youth by keeping them off the streets, away from
criminal activities and out of desperate circumstances,'' said
Subcommittee Chairman Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), who chaired the
hearing.
The Missing Children's Assistance Act coordinates with and
supports law enforcement officials and families with locating
and recovering missing and exploited children, including
running a national 24-hour hotline and offering training and
technical assistance. Programs authorized by the Runaway and
Homeless Youth Act operate community-based programs that
provide basic needs to runaway and homeless youth and their
families, including shelter, food, clothing, health care and
counseling. Both Acts also fund preventative and educational
programs, leading efforts to reduce the numbers of at-risk
children nationwide.
To reauthorize these programs and improve services for at-
risk youth, Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) introduced the Runaway,
Homeless, and Missing Children Protection Act (H.R. 1925). That
bill, approved by the Select Education Subcommittee on May 7,
2003 and later signed by President Bush, helps locate and
recover missing and exploited children, and support community-
based programs that provide basic needs to runaway and homeless
youth and families, including shelter, food, clothing,
healthcare, and counseling. Gingrey's legislation also
authorizes funds for preventative and educational programs,
leading efforts to reduce the numbers of at-risk children
nationwide.
The first substantive legislation by a freshman member of
Congress to be signed into law in 2003, the Runaway, Homeless,
and Missing Children Protection Act also authorizes funding for
the Presidential initiative that created maternity group homes,
which are transitional living programs for young mothers and
their children. The homes, included in the Transitional Living
Program, provide pregnant youth and young mothers aged 16-21
with food and shelter, as well as an extensive array of
parenting programs. Mothers participating in these group homes
learn about child development, family budgeting, health and
nutrition, and parenting skills, in order to prepare them to be
self-sufficient and economically independent mothers.
MONITORING FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AT THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
During the final three years of the Clinton administration,
the Education Department failed three consecutive audits, and
an estimated $450 million was lost to waste, fraud, and
mismanagement.
Republican members of Congress pushed forcefully for
accountability at the Department during the 107th Congress, and
Education Secretary Rod Paige acted swiftly and decisively to
develop guidelines to combat the waste, fraud, and abuse that
occurred under previous management. In the 108th Congress, Rep.
Pete Hoekstra's (R-MI) Select Education Subcommittee continued
to monitor improvements in financial management at the
Department of Education. The Select Education Subcommittee's
oversight efforts worked in tandem with Secretary Paige to
ensure accountability in the use of federal education funds
wherever they are used.
On March 12, 2003, the Select Education Subcommittee heard
testimony on the financial management practices at the
Department of Education, and specifically on those practices
that helped lead the Department to three consecutive clean
financial audits under the leadership of Secretary Paige and
President Bush.
``I appreciate the leadership that Secretary Paige and
Deputy Secretary Hansen have shown in changing the culture at
the Department of Education and working to eliminate the waste,
fraud, and abuse that have stolen resources away from this
nation's children,'' said Hoekstra at the hearing. ``This
Administration has demonstrated its commitment to improving our
children's education without squandering precious resources
through bureaucratic mismanagement.''
U.S. Department of Education Deputy Secretary William
Hansen testified on the methods used to combat the waste,
fraud, and abuse that plagued the Department's financial
management system. The goals set forth by the Administration to
inject accountability into financial management practices
included: installing new leadership in areas of fiscal
management; assembling a task force of Department leaders to
identify and address issues of immediate concern as well as lay
out a blueprint to address long-term and structural areas in
need of improvement; and soliciting the counsel and advice of
external advisors, testified Hansen.
``The number one priority for the Department of Education
is educating children and closing the achievement gap so no
child is left behind,'' said Hansen. ``I believe you will find
that our efforts over the last two years demonstrate our
commitment to making the Department of Education a model agency
of program and management excellence.''
The U.S. Department of Education has made significant
progress in improving financial oversight practices,
eliminating waste and helping to ensure that federal education
funds are appropriately used to provide a high quality
education to the nation's children. While achieving clean
financial audits are critical steps in curbing financial
mismanagement, areas vulnerable to waste remain, Hoekstra and
others noted. The hearing served as a reminder that the
Department of Education must maintain the high standards of
fiscal accountability in order to maintain and improve upon the
progress made in financial oversight.
II. Hearings Held by the Subcommittee
108th Congress, First Session
March 12, 2003--Hearing on ``Recent Improvements of
Financial Management Practices at the U.S. Department of
Education'' (108-8)
April 1, 2003--Hearing on ``Performance, Accountability,
and Reforms at the Corporation for National and Community
Service'' (108-11)
April 29, 2003--Hearing on ``Missing, Exploited and Runaway
Youth: Strengthening the System'' (108-12)
June 19, 2003--Hearing on ``International Programs in
Higher Education and Questions of Bias'' (108-21)
September 9, 2003--Hearing on ``Beyond Baccalaureate:
Graduate Programs in the Higher Education Act'' (108-30)
October 6, 2003--Field Hearing on ``Expanding Opportunities
in Higher Education: Honoring the Contributions of America's
Hispanic Serving Institutions,'' in Edinburg, Texas (108-35)
IV. Markups Held by the Subcommittee
108th Congress, First Session
May 7, 2003--H.R. 1925, Runaway, Homeless, and Missing
Children Protection Act was ordered favorably reported, as
amended, to the Full Committee by voice vote.
September 17, 2003--H.R. 3076, Graduate Opportunities in
Higher Education Act of 2003 was ordered reported, as amended,
to the Full Committee by voice vote. H.R. 3077, International
Studies in Higher Education Act of 2003 was ordered favorably
reported, as amended, to the Full Committee by voice vote.
V. Subcommittee Statistics
Total Number of Bills and Resolutions Referred to Subcommittee.... 43
Total Number of Hearings.......................................... 6
Field......................................................... 1
Joint With Other Committees................................... 0
Total Number of Subcommittee Markup Sessions...................... 2
Total Number of Bills Reported From Subcommittee.................. 3