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