Copyright 2000 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
April 12, 2000, Wednesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 7374 words
HEADLINE:
TESTIMONY April 12, 2000 WILLIAM F. GOODLING HOUSE
APPROPRIATIONS LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION LABOR HHS
APPROPRIATIONS
BODY:
WILLIAM F. GOODLING TESTIMONY
BEFORE LABOR-HHS-EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE April 11, 2000 Mr.
Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify before your
subcommittee today. Before I begin my testimony, I want to take a moment to
thank you for all your hard work in support of adequate funding for the many
important education and workforce programs that come before your subcommittee. I
have enjoyed working with you over the years and greatly appreciate the
attention and consideration you have given to the funding priorities of my
committee. You will be greatly missed by your colleagues in Congress, as well as
the many people in the field who have come to rely on your expertise in making
wise and fair funding allocations for the numerous programs before your
subcommittee. I look forward to working with you this one last time before we
both retire to ensure that federal education programs focus on what we know
works: helping children master basic academics, involving parents in their
children's education, and ensuring that dollars reach children in the classroom
and make a difference in their learning. With respect to workforce issues, we
are moving forward to craft common sense solutions to the challenges in today's
workplace and to ensure that American workers and their families have security,
flexibility and fairness in the workplace. I wish to focus my comments this
afternoon around those programs that I believe should be given top priority in
the fiscal year 2001 appropriations bill. I might note for the record that my
priorities have not changed from last year. With respect to elementary and
secondary education, the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) is the highest priority. The Pell Grant Program is our top
priority among all the higher education programs. Let me begin by thanking you
once again Mr. Chairman, for your continued efforts to provide funding increases
to Part B of IDEA. Since 1996, you have increased funding for IDEA by more than
$2.6 billion and you have demonstrated our continued commitment to help states
and school districts provide a free, appropriate public education to children
with disabilities. I want to thank you for your leadership on this important
issue. As you know, when Congress mandated special education programs in 1975,
we promised to pay forty percent of the national average per pupil expenditure
to assist with the excess cost of educating a disabled child. In fact, we
currently provide only about 12.6 percent of this cost, even with four years of
unparalleled increases provided by Republican-led Congresses. It is my hope that
we continue down the path toward paying our fair share for this important
program. I am suggesting that we increase funding for Part B by $ 1.1 billion
which would exceed last year's increase by $421 million and provide over $6
billion next year to states and local school districts to assist with the costs
of educating disabled children. Here is the justification: the cost of special
education is rising and this trend is expected to continue. Special education
costs can frequently involve health-related expenditures and the use of new
technologies, both being areas of high cost increases. In addition, the number
of children identified for special education services is growing. The Department
of Education budget projects for fiscal year 2001, an increase of more than
100,000 children needing special education services over last year's number. In
my own district, for example, the York City School District currently spends
more than $6.4 million each year on special education services, which represents
about 16 percent of its total budget. The federal contribution to that 16
percent is currently only 5.7 percent. If the federal government paid the
promised 40 percent for special education, I estimate that York City would have
approximately $ 1.1 million in additional funds to spend on other pressing
educational needs. While $ 1.1 million may not sound like a lot of money to this
subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that in a school district like York
City this represents a significant source of funds. For large cities across the
country, the additional funds would represent a significant increase in
available resources. Local school districts currently spend on average 20
percent of their budgets on special education services. Much of this goes to
cover the unpaid federal share of the mandate. Once the federal government
begins to pay its fair share, however, some of these funds will be available for
local schools to use to hire and train high-quality teachers, reduce class size,
build and renovate classrooms, invest in technology and to meet other pressing
needs identified by the local community. Next, I would like to talk about the
Even Start Family Literacy Program. This program is based on the concept of
family literacy and focuses on helping both parents and children improve their
literacy skills. Last month, Governor George Bush stated that this country has a
national emergency with respect to literacy levels and called for $5 billion to
be spent over five years to address this issue. In 1998, 68 percent of our
nation's most economically disadvantaged fourth graders could not read at the
basic level as measured by the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP)
reading exam. Nationally, 47 percent of our adult population has severely
limited literacy skills. The Even Start Family Literacy Program combines adult
education services for parents with the appropriate educational services for
their children. The goal is to empower parents to be their child's first and
most important teacher by improving the academic skills of the parents
themselves. As we all know, parents are key to their child's academic success.
The more parents read to their children and actively participate in their
education, the greater probability that their children will succeed in school.
By raising the literacy level of participating parents, family literacy programs
break the continuous cycles of illiteracy and poverty. Earlier this year on a
bipartisan basis, my committee reported the Literacy Involves Families Together
Act (LIFT) which makes a number of key improvements to the Even Start Family
Literacy Program. Following the example we set in the Head Start Program, Title
I and the Teacher Empowerment Act, this bill provides a strong focus on quality
instruction by ensuring that the majority of instructional staff hired with
federal funds will have a degree or meet state qualifications for early
childhood, elementary education or adult education. Even Start instructional
programs will be based on scientifically based research for children and adults,
not on the latest fads. States will be allowed to fund training and technical
assistance activities in order to improve the quality of the programs. Finally,
states will be required to evaluate the progress of local programs in meeting
the goals of the program to ensure that literacy skills are being improved. One
issue that is a problem is the lack of quality research with respect to how
adults learn to read. The Institute for the Study of Adult Literacy at
Pennsylvania State University has been doing high quality research work for over
15 years and has worked with many Even Start grantees to design and carry out
their program evaluations. The Institute has a recognized expertise in
developing quality family literacy programs through their work in Pennsylvania.
Plans are now underway to provide enhanced professional development through the
University's web-based world campus that recently launched a master's degree
program in adult education. Under the direction of Dr. Eunice Askov, the
Institute for the Study of Adult Literacy has become one of the leading
postsecondary institutions supporting research and development in adult and
family literacy. When the LIFT bill is enacted this year, the Even Start Family
Literacy Program will be much improved and should be expanded to many more
communities across the country. For that reason, I would ask that you increase
the total funding level for the program to $325 million. I believe that is a
small price to pay to ensure the success of disadvantaged families. Related to
the issue of literacy, I would also like to request an increase of $2 million
for the National Institute for Literacy (NIFL). The NIFL is the only federal
agency solely devoted to improving the literacy skills of all Americans and
since 1991, the NIFL has been building an infrastructure to support increased
access to high quality literacy instruction. The NIFL is helping create the
literacy system Americans will need in the 21st Century through a set of
innovative projects that have leveraged other public and private investments.
With increased funding, the NIFL is proposing to develop a national capacity
building initiative that will use research- based knowledge and best practices
to improve the quality of English language instruction. This would be
accomplished by creating multimedia tools that would be used to train trainers
in all 50 states so that they could provide technical assistance to local
programs. This would leverage the existing capacity of federally funded state
training systems. The NIFL would also work with the Department of Labor's
America's Learning Exchange as well as state and national organizations to
create and maintain an on-line national database of adult education and literacy
services. This would be a searchable database that could serve a variety of
users' needs. Adult education and literacy programs and services are often not
easy to find and access, making it very difficult for potential students to find
the right services to meet their goals, for businesses to identify basic skills
service providers, and for volunteers to connect to programs that could utilize
their assistance. This small investment would greatly enhance the availability
of quality English language instruction programs. A program that did not receive
a funding increase last year, even though it serves an extremely disadvantaged
group of students, is the Title I Migrant Education Program. This program is the
only program that specifically addresses the needs of children of migrant farm
workers by providing funds to schools to address academic problems related to
the multiple moves migrant children must make during the school year. These
children are greatly disadvantaged with respect to their ability to obtain a
quality education. We all know that these students are at great risk of dropping
out of school and failing academically due to the many disruptions they
encounter in the course of their education. The poverty and mobility of these
students create a need for educational services that go well beyond services
traditionally supported with state and local budgets. Increased funding for the
Title I Migrant Education Program would enable states to expand the programs and
services offered to current students and other eligible students not currently
served by the program. As the number of eligible students continues to increase,
it is critical that we provide sufficient funding that will enable states to
provide needed services to all children of migrant farm workers. This program
did not receive an increase last year, so I would ask that you increase the
program by $71 million for fiscal year 2001. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman,
for accepting my recommendation last year for funding the bi-partisan Teacher
Empowerment Act (TEA) in your appropriations bill by consolidating funds from
Goals 2000, Class Size Reduction and Eisenhower Professional Development. I
would ask again that you consolidate the $2 billion in funding for these three
programs and invest those funds in TEA. Hopefully, TEA will be law by the time
your appropriations bill is signed by the president. As you know, this important
legislation is still pending in the Senate, and when signed by the president it
will provide local schools the flexibility to focus on initiatives they believe
will best improve both teacher quality and student performance. For example,
schools may wish to pursue tenure reform, testing tied to bonus pay, grants to
teachers to attend professional development, or instituting effective mentoring
programs for new teachers. In exchange for this flexibility, schools will be
held accountable to parents and taxpayers for demonstrating results measured
through improved student academic achievement. Unlike the president's proposal,
TEA does not mandate that all funds be used to reduce class size. Instead, it
allows schools to determine the right balance between smaller classes and
teacher quality - clearly, a choice best kept out of Washington. Now, let me
briefly express my concern over the president's budget recommendations for three
important programs. First, I am greatly disappointed that the president has
continued his crusade to eliminate the Title VI (formerly known as the Chapter
2) block grant program. I was pleased that this program received a $5 million
increase in last year's appropriation, but displeased that the administration
targeted this program for a rescission of almost $ 10 million below the fiscal
year 1999:ftmding level. This program, as you know, provides flexible funding to
states for activities such as teacher training, education reform, and classroom
materials. It is one of the few education programs widely and consistently
praised in testimony by principals, superintendents and state officials from
around the country. The administration has once again proposed to eliminate this
program, consistent with their overall direction to increase funding for
nationally administered programs but cut programs that send funds directly to
states and school districts. Mr. Chairman, I hope that you will not follow the
president's recommendation. Funding for this flexible program should be
increased by $20 million over the original fiscal year 2000 appropriation for a
total funding level of $400 million. I am certain that you share my
disappointment in the president's proposed cuts to the Impact Aid Program. As
you know, the Impact Aid Program provides support for school districts that have
been impacted by a federal presence. H.R. 3616, the Impact Aid Reauthorization
Act of 2000, reported by the Committee on Education and the Workforce, makes key
changes to the Impact Aid Program to improve its ability to provide assistance
to those school districts most heavily impacted by a federal presence. One new
provision in this legislation would establish a funding floor for small school
districts with fewer than 1,000 children who have a per pupil average lower than
the state average. This provision would guarantee those school districts a
foundation payment of not less than 40 percent of what they would receive if the
program were fully funded. The cost of this provision is approximately $5.2
million. As you consider funding for the Impact Aid Program, I would request
that you provide the program with an additional $5.2 million so that no school
district experiences a reduction in impact aid funds as a result of our efforts
to help small school districts. Finally, I am disappointed that the president
has recommended a $200 million cut to vocational education state grants. My
committee worked very hard to reform the vocational and technical education
system in the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education
Amendments of 1998. Specifically, the legislation aims to improve the academic
achievement of vocational and technical education students, increase the funding
that actually reaches the classroom and increase the focus of these programs on
technology and the needs of local businesses. In light of these program
improvements, I strongly oppose the president's proposal for cutting the state
grant program by $200 million. I think it would be more appropriate to consider
increasing funds for this program by an additional $50 million. With respect to
higher education, I am glad to see that the president has requested a $200
increase to the maximum Pell Grant award for students from low-income families.
When it comes to priorities in higher education, I cannot state strongly enough
my support for increasing the Pell Grant maximum. By the end of the
appropriations process, I hope we can do even better than a $200 increase. This
is the one program that may make the difference in whether or not a student from
a low-income family decides to enroll in postsecondary education. In addition to
the Pell Grant Program, I also want to express my support for funding increases
to the campus-based student aid programs. While Pell Grants open the door to
postsecondary education for many students from low-income families, it's the
campus-based programs that provide these same students some degree of choice in
selecting a postsecondary institution. After years of exorbitant increases in
the cost of a college education, the maximum Pell Grant no longer covers the
cost of attendance at most public 4-year institutions in the country. However, a
Pell Grant coupled with awards from the campus-based programs goes a long way in
reducing the amount a student needs to borrow in loans in order to pay the bills
for tuition and room and board. I also want to express my support for a small
funding amount of $225,000 for the Web Based Education Commission. This
commission was created in the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 in order to
conduct a thorough study to assess the educational software available in retail
markets for secondary and postsecondary education. At that time, we
underestimated the extent of the research involved in order for the commission
to adequately conduct its review and we did not authorize sufficient funds for
the work to be completed. This additional amount will ensure that the commission
completes its work and reports to Congress in a timely manner. Mr. Chairman,
there is one final issue I want to bring to your attention. On February 5, 1998,
the House passed H.R. 2846, a bill I introduced, which prohibits national
testing unless specific and explicit statutory authority is given. As a result
of that measure, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act of 1999 included a permanent ban on pilot testing, field
testing, implementation, administration or distribution of national tests unless
specifically and explicitly authorized. This represents the most recent
expression of the will of the Congress on national testing, and as of this date,
no specific or explicit authority has been given by my committee or the Congress
for new national tests. However, the administration is again trying to
circumvent this prohibition. In the administration's budget request, they
specifically request $5 million for America's Tests. The funds are to be used to
complete test development and move forward with plans for pilot testing , field
testing and administration. These activities are clearly banned under current
law, and I urge you to resist any such attempt to repeal the current ban on
national testing. Finally, I would strongly urge your subcommittee to refrain
from funding any new programs under the jurisdiction of my committee that have
not been explicitly authorized. Creating new federal programs raises false
expectations and diverts scarce funds away from meeting important federal
commitments, such as providing a high quality education to children with
disabilities or opening the doors to a higher education to students from
low-income families. On the workforce side of my committee, we are moving
forward to craft common sense solutions to the challenges in today's workplace
and to ensure that American workers and their families have security,
flexibility, and fairness in the workplace. I would like to emphasize that
Department of Labor funds should focus on helping employers, employees and
unions voluntarily comply with and better understand laws such as the
Occupational Safety and Health Act. With regard to OSHA, it seems as though the
current administration agrees with the committee's view that OSHA can be more
effective in improving health and safety by working with, rather than against
employers. However, their budget request does not reflect that view. The
committee is particularly concerned that the president's budget proposes a
substantial increase for Federal Compliance Assistance and only a small increase
for State Consultation Grants. Given the overwhelming support of the 105th
Congress for the consultation program, as evidenced by the swift enactment of
H.R. 2864, I urge you to reverse the president's proposed spending priorities
within OSHA, and give the State Consultation Grants priority for any additional
funds made available to OSHA. One particular concern of the committee with
respect to OSHA is their regulatory agenda. For example, OSHA's Work at Home
interpretation letter would have saddled telecommuters with burdensome
regulations designed for traditional workplaces. It would also have had a severe
chilling effect on the ability of employers attempting to accommodate the family
needs of employees through telecommuting and work-at-home employment
opportunities. After significant public and congressional protests, OSHA
withdrew the letter that would have caused many employers to reconsider their
telecommuting programs. However, questions remain about their underlying policy.
In addition, the proposed regulation on ergonomics and the soon- to-be proposed
safety and health management regulation threaten to be the most expensive and
most intrusive regulation in OSHA's history. Congress has considered and not
passed legislative proposals for such mandatory programs, and I would urge this
subcommittee to use your control of OSHA's budget to demand that OSHA consider
other, non-regulatory alternatives to the proposed mandate. Another budget
concern of the committee is the significant funding increase requested by the
Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP).
While some of the increase would apparently go to compliance assistance, much of
this increase could go to expand the overly bureaucratic and heavy-handed
enforcement requirements of the OFCCP, which mandates that contractors file
lengthy, complex affirmative action plans. These requirements were heavily
criticized in hearings as paperwork-driven and actually counterproductive to
effective affirmative action programs. The difficulty with the requirements is
also evidenced by the fact that it took the OFCCP itself over one year to submit
a sample affirmative action plan based on its own workforce when asked to do so
by Members of my committee. Mr. Chairman, the committee also remains concerned
about the suspension of the Davis- Bacon "helpers" regulations. The "helper"
rule proposed by the Department of Labor on April 9, 1999, appears to be
designed not to facilitate the use of helpers, but rather to continue to
prohibit their use. The committee believes the Department of Labor should
resolve this matter by issuing helper regulations that allow these low-skilled
workers to gain valuable job experience working on federal construction
projects. Employing helpers on federal construction projects will save the
government money and help create thousands of new jobs for entry-level workers.
We will continue to keep a watchful eye on the Davis-Bacon Act in general. Past
investigations have shown that the Davis-Bacon wage setting process is broken
and that it invites fraud and abuse. Before more funding is provided for the
Davis Bacon wage- determination process, close and careful scrutiny is needed. I
also urge you to reject the administration's request for $20 million to fund
competitive planning grants for states and other interested entities to
"explore" ways to require paid Family and Medical Leave. It is clear that this
is an attempt by the administration to encourage states to adopt the president's
very controversial scheme to pay for voluntary birth and adoption leave out of
state trust funds reserved for the unemployed. The president's scheme abandons a
65-year-old commitment to reserve unemployment trust funds for the unemployed.
With this proposal, the president has not only pitted the interests of parents
against the unemployed, but also he is trying to controvert the clear intent of
Congress and amend the Family and Medical Leave Act through the regulatory
backdoor. The administration's issuance of regulations to amend the
government-wide Federal Acquisition Regulations (FARs) to require, for the first
time, that any company bidding on a federal contract have a "satisfactory"
record of labor relations also continues to cause concern among committee
Members. Companies that do not have a so-called "satisfactory" record would
apparently be barred from contracting with the government. The proposed rule,
published in July 1999, prompted some 1,600 comments. Our committee repeatedly
has expressed its concern that this effort would place career agency debarring
officials, or individual contracting officers, in the position of determining
what constitutes a "satisfactory" record with regard to a specific company -
skills that are absent within the federal procurement workforce. It would also
provide a fertile field for mischief, as bureaucrats with virtually unreviewable
discretion could be directed to intervene in labor disputes whenever there is
any significant conflict between unions and management. Is an ongoing strike
evidence of "unsatisfactory" labor relations? Is a previous strike evidence of
"unsatisfactory" labor relations? Is a refusal to agree to an automatic
cost-of-living increase an "unsatisfactory" treatment of the labor force? What
number of unfair labor practice charges is evidence of "unsatisfactory"
relations? What number of settlements demonstrates "unsatisfactory" relations?
My point is that this area is riddled with problems and needs to be carefully
followed. It is my understanding that the Office of Federal Procurement Policy
may be returning to the drawing board on their proposal, and may offer another
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to address the due process and other problems
raised by this committee and others. Let me emphasize that even with a
modification of the original proposal, the blacklisting regulations constitute
legislating by executive fiat and a political solution in search of a problem
that does not exist. Another area of concern relates to the department's
proposed new - and highly controversial - claims regulations which revise the
antiquated claims procedures now governing disputes between participants and
group health plans. I firmly believe that these regulations should not be
finalized until Congress completes work on the Patients Bill of Rights, which
will contain statutory guidelines for claims processing. Mr. Chairman, I would
ask that your subcommittee take this issue into consideration when reviewing the
PWBA's budget request. On a more positive note with respect to the PWBA's budget
request, I do support the request for $500,000 to implement the SAVER Act,
including conducting the statutorily mandated 2001 National Summit on Retirement
Savings. This act, initiated by my committee, promotes retirement savings
through a public-private partnership. In addition, I am pleased that the
department has followed my suggestion of last year in regard to the funding of
consumer protections. My committee feels very strongly that implementation and
enforcement of consumer protections in the area of health benefits must remain a
high priority, and should be a continuing obligation of the Department of Labor.
We also appreciate the willingness of the Department of Labor to work with us on
crafting legislation that will clarify the rules regarding stock option profits
being calculated as part of employee overtime pay. In a recent opinion letter,
the Department of Labor determined that the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, at
least in some cases, requires profits from the exercise of stock options to be
part of an employee's "regular rate" of pay, and therefore must be taken into
account in determining the employee's overtime rate of pay. While the opinion
letter constitutes an interpretation of the law based on the facts and
circumstances of one specific case, the practical effect of the letter is to
"red flag" all other similar programs and cause widespread confusion about
overtime liability among employers who provide stock options for their hourly or
"nonexempt" employees. Without clarifying legislative language, this
interpretation will undermine the ability and the willingness of employers to
make stock options available to their "nonexempt" employees. Finally, Members of
the Committee on Education and the Workforce support efforts to help assist
adults in their search for new jobs, better skills and new training
opportunities, all of which were included in the Workforce Investment Act.
Funding these workforce development initiatives that have strong accountability
measures is a worthwhile investment. Supporting the programs in the Workforce
Investment Act will ensure that all Americans have the training and literacy
levels they need to qualify for good jobs and to successfully manage their
careers. As always, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your hard work and dedication
to these important priorities and to the wise use of taxpayer dollars. I look
forward to working with you closely as this process continues and would be happy
to answer any questions you may have at this time.
LOAD-DATE: April 25, 2000, Tuesday
