[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

                                  
