Views and Estimates of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce
Fiscal Year 1999
Members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce believe
there is nothing more important to the future of our country than
helping all children have the opportunity for a high quality
education and ensuring that American workers and their families have
security, flexibility and fairness in the workplace. The Committee
will continue its efforts to help children master basic academics,
involve parents in their children's education and ensure that
dollars reach children in the classroom. The Committee will also
continue to support an agenda of common sense reform rather than new
Federal programs and regulations in the workplace. To that end, the
Committee plans to consider the following items during the
2nd session of the 105th
Congress.
Committee Legislative Priorities for Education and Human Services
in 1998
Helping America's Youth Prepare for the Future
The Higher Education Act (HEA) authorization bill benefits
millions of college students across the country. The bill will
continue to improve programs that help students pay for college such
as Work Study, Pell Grants, TRIO programs and student loans. The
Committee is proud of the accomplishments Republicans have made in
making college affordable for all students. Under Republican
Congresses, Pell Grants and College Work Study have received
historic funding increases. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 created
Education IRAs and other scholarships to help low- and middle-income
students gain a postsecondary education. The HEA authorization bill
will build on these achievements by continuing these and other
important programs and by reforming burdensome requirements so that
programs can best meet the needs of colleges and students.
The HEA will also address the need to reduce administrative costs
in the processing, delivery and monitoring of Federal financial aid
by moving the Department of Education into the 21st
century. Specifically, the Department will be directed to move to a
Performance Based Organization for the operation and maintenance of
the student financial aid delivery system. The new PBO will be
responsible for making sound management decisions in the design of
the delivery system in order to better serve students and their
families and institutions of higher education. A stable and
efficient delivery system should result in reduced administrative
costs not only at the Department of Education, but also at
institutions of higher education, banks, guaranty agencies and other
program participants that interact with Department's delivery
system.
One of the more difficult challenges that has surfaced in the
authorization of the Higher Education Act is the index for
establishing the interest rates on student loans. Prior to the
Student Loan Reform Act of 1993, interest rates were always tied to
91-day Treasury bills. However, as part of the changes associated
with the creation of the Federal Direct Student Loan Program, the
index for establishing interest rates was changed to the 10-yr
Treasury bill rate, effective July 1, 1998. We believe this
scheduled rate change has the potential for disrupting the Federal
Family Education Loan Program resulting in a serious access problem
for students trying to obtain student loans.
Compounding this problem is the fact that the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) has recently changed their methodology for
determining the cost of legislative changes to the student loan
programs. Specifically, CBO is now using a forecasting model that
assumes that the government will have to make additional payments to
compensate banks for making loans at the capped rate of 8.25 percent
even though interest rates are projected to be well below 8.25
percent. These costs were not included in CBO's former models.
Under the former CBO forecasting model, reversing the July 1
interest rate change would have saved $2 billion over the next five
years. Under CBO's new model, however, reversing the July 1 interest
rate change and helping to cushion the blow for students will now
cost billions over the next five years.
It is critical that the Education and Workforce Committee, in
cooperation with the Budget Committee, arrive at a solution for this
problem in order to preserve the Federal Family Education Loan
Program. The Budget Committee must provide sufficient funds in the
fiscal year 1999 budget resolution to ensure that the Federal Family
Education Loan Program remains viable for the millions of students
and families who need to borrow student loans.
Finding Out What's Working and What's Wasted in Existing
Education Programs
The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations continues to
examine Federal education programs to determine which are working to
help students learn and where money is wasted. Through the Education
at a Crossroads project, the Committee has learned that the Federal
government already operates 788 education programs at a cost of
nearly $100 billion.
During 1997, Members of the Committee listened to Americans from
all walks of life through 15 field hearings across the country and
in six hearings in Washington, D.C., to discuss how to improve
education. Members visited 26 schools and heard from over 200
witnesses during their work on the Education at a Crossroads
project. Across the country, witnesses testified about what works in
education. Witnesses told us that we need to focus our reform
efforts on helping children master basic academics, involving
parents in their children's education, and ensuring that resources
are not wasted on bureaucracy but reach the classroom. One of the
primary concerns raised by many witnesses was the amount of
paperwork and bureaucracy involved in Federal education money. The
Committee continues to be concerned that many Federal funds never
reach the classroom, and that State and local resources are diverted
from classrooms to apply for these funds and comply with their
requirements. Moreover, many of the 788 Federal education programs
lack evidence that demonstrates their effectiveness. The Committee
will continue its efforts to determine how Federal education funds
are being spent and how programs could be reformed to ensure that
they are effective. We believe the President should focus on
reforming existing programs before creating new, expensive,
duplicative Federal programs in an election year. Since the
Republicans took control of Congress, 143 duplicative education and
job training programs have been repealed and consolidated. More is
yet to be done.
Helping Children Master the Basics
Americans know that our children must master the basic academics
for success in school and the workplace. A good standards and
testing system can give States and communities important, objective
information about how our students are doing. The Committee believes
the best standards and tests are those that are developed at the
State and local levels. This information can help provide a needed
spark for education improvement. But, standards and tests are not
the medicine that will cure our educational ills; they are simply a
thermometer that takes our educational "temperature." Whatever we do
in Washington must support communities succeed with what works:
helping children master the basics, engaging and involving parents,
and getting dollars to the classroom where they can do the most
good. These principles will guide the Committee's consideration of
the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and National
Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) authorizations. Finally, whether
this country shall have any new 4th and 8th
grade Federal tests, as proposed by the Administration, shall be
determined in future months, and subject to the will of
Congress.
Ensuring Young Children Start School Ready to Learn
The Committee believes that children should leave Head Start
ready to learn. We need to provide both the parents and teachers of
children in Head Start the necessary tools and direction to
accomplish that task. We also want to ensure that Head Start is a
well-run program. As a result, the focus of this year's
authorization will be on fiscal and program accountability.
The primary purpose of the Head Start program is to provide
disadvantaged children in the program a head start over their peers,
in both social and educational development. The Committee is
concerned that if Head Start is not giving children enrolled in the
program an extra advantage upon entering kindergarten, then Head
Start is not doing its job. Specifically, the Committee will also
focus upon whether Head Start is laying the foundation for these
children to learn how to read.
Second, the Committee also wants to ensure that Head Start is
both a well-run program and a program that is well integrated with
other early childhood programs. In the age of welfare reform, Head
Start cannot work in isolation. It is imperative that Head Start
integrate and coordinate with other state, Federal, and private
sector programs to ensure that the maximum number of working
families are fully served.
Helping Families in Need
The Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program provides
nutritional services to low- income, pregnant women, infants and
children. Other child nutrition programs provide school meals,
nutritional assistance to children during the summer and nutritional
assistance to children in child care. As the Committee considers
changes to those programs that expire this year, we will ensure that
they remain flexible so States and localities can continue to serve
needy populations efficiently and effectively.
The Committee will also examine the Community Services Block
Grant to States program, which provides services to reduce poverty
and address the needs of low-income individuals. The Committee wants
to ensure that low-income individuals are receiving the best
services available from their community and that the program is run
efficiently.
Helping Seniors Lead Independent and Fulfilling Lives
Programs under the Older Americans Act provide nutrition and
supportive services through the Meals on Wheels and the Congregate
Meals program, as well as employment services for low-income senior
citizens. The Committee wants to empower seniors to lead healthy and
independent lives. By providing nutritious meals, quality support
services and protection from abuse, we will help seniors lead
independent and fulfilling lives.
Committee Response to President Clinton's Fiscal Year 1999
Education and Human Services Budget
President Clinton cuts programs that send money locally while
boosting Washington spending.
President Clinton's priorities move us backward to the era
of big government. His overall budget increases in education
demonstrate his commitment to big bureaucracies. When taken as a
whole, President Clinton's proposals expand the reach of the Federal
government into local education matters in ways that are
unprecedented in our nation's history. If the President's proposals
were enacted, the Federal government would begin to determine school
curriculum, give all children new Federal tests, hire teachers and
build schools. The Committee believes that the Federal government
has no business taking over the decisions of local school boards,
parents and teachers.
The President's budget cuts $476 million from education programs
targeted to local communities while at the same time adding $143
million to programs that fund the Federal education bureaucracy and
other Federal education activities that do not reach classrooms. In
addition, the President's budget contains a 5.3 percent boost ($18
million) for the U.S. Department of Education's internal
administration and a 10.6 percent ($6.5 million) increase for the
Department's Office of Civil Rights.
President Clinton's budget cuts funds for the Even Start family
reading program (-7%), the Title VI block grant program for local
education initiatives (eliminated), Impact Aid (-14%) and the Safe
and Drug Free Schools State Grant Program (cut by $5 million). It
also proposes flat funding for the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act and the Vocational Education Grants to States
Program.
The President's budget fails to support existing Federal
obligations.
President Clinton's budget ignores promises the Federal
government made to States and school districts 23 years ago. The
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is the only
Federal education mandate on school districts. When Congress passed
IDEA in 1975, we promised to pay 40 percent of the excess cost of
educating a disabled child. Yet, even with historic increases
provided by the Republican Congress to this program over the past
two years, the U.S. Department of Education estimates that the
Federal government still only contributes about 9 percent of this
cost. President Clinton continues to ignore this unfunded mandate on
States and local school districts by requesting no increase in
Federal assistance to educate children with disabilities. In fact,
considering that the number of children with disabilities is
projected to increase by 119,000 from 1998 to 1999, the President's
budget request actually cuts funding for children with
disabilities.
President Clinton's budget also slashes support for programs that
States and local communities consider top priorities, such as Title
VI block grants (which allow schools to fund training, school
computers and education reform), Even Start family literacy and
Impact Aid (which provides funds to school districts with military
bases or Indian reservations). The Clinton Administration claims it
wants to provide local communities with greater flexibility while at
the same time proposing to eliminate the most flexible program
available to local communities (the Title VI block grant program).
Perhaps this is because Washington bureaucracies don't have much
control over how States and school districts choose to spend their
Title VI money.
The Administration's student loan proposals potentially
jeopardize the Federal Family Education Loan Program that has served
students for 30 years and which continues to provide almost 70% of
the student loans made each year. The Administration proposal to
recall ALL the remaining reserve funds held by guaranty agencies in
addition to the $1 billion already subject to recall through the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 severely hampers the ability of guaranty
agencies to provide quality services to students and their families,
as well as institutions of higher education. The additional
reductions in revenues to these agencies insures the failure of many
of these State and non-profit entities. Rather than forcing the
precipitous closure of these agencies that we believe will result
under the Administration's proposal, the Committee hopes to provide
the Secretary and guaranty agencies with an opportunity to agree on
different methods of reimbursing guaranty agencies for the services
they perform in an effort to determine the most cost effective
method. The Committee is also disappointed that the President's
student loan proposals do not provide solutions to the serious
situation regarding the change in interest rates set to occur on
July 1, 1998 that may force banks out of the guaranteed loan program
and leave millions of students without access to loans.
President Clinton's new initiatives are duplicative of existing
Federal programs.
The President proposes to spend $1.5 billion over five years
($200 million in fiscal year 1999) to create "Educational
Opportunity Zones." Under this proposal, 50 poor, low-achieving
school districts would receive funds to institute reforms to help
boost grades and test scores, and finance programs allowing parents
to choose public schools. Grants will be targeted to local school
districts that provide for public school choice, hold schools and
teachers accountable for helping students reach academic standards,
and require students to meet academic standards. This program sounds
a lot like the $8 billion Title I program, which has provided
assistance to help low-achieving school districts since 1965. Rather
than create a new $1.5 billion program, the President should support
efforts to improve the effectiveness of this existing program.
In addition, President Clinton's budget proposes creating and
funding new categorical teacher training initiatives even though we
already have 43 programs on the books that can provide professional
development in a variety of areas.
The President's class size reduction proposal would cost $1.1
billion in mandatory money in FY 99 and $12 billion in mandatory
money over the next seven years. It seems the President has proposed
this as mandatory funding simply to get around the discretionary
spending caps and to avoid identifying existing education programs
that he would reduce to pay for the new initiative. While the
Committee recognizes that much smaller classrooms -- even smaller
than those proposed by the President -- allow teachers to give more
time and attention to each student, we must take a closer look at
the facts and try to address the larger problem in our nation's
schools: too many teachers are teaching when they simply have not
been adequately prepared to teach in their subject area. Before any
program begins to spend billions on hiring new teachers, we should
first focus on improving the quality of the current teacher
preparation programs.
The Administration is also requesting funds for a new agency
research initiative at the cost of at least $50 million. The funds
would support discussions between researchers in different agencies
---something the Committee believes they should already be doing
under current authority. The Office of Educational Research and
Improvement should be working closely with other Federal research
agencies to ensure that efforts are coordinated, not duplicated, and
based on rigorous, sound scientific research principles. The
Committee continues to be troubled that the U.S. Department of
Education was unaware of important research conducted by the
National Institute for Child Health and Human Development on how
children learn to read. It is critical for the Department to be
aware of how recent research may impact the effectiveness of its
programs; however, the Committee does not believe a 39 percent
increase in OERI funding is necessary to accomplish this. The
Committee urges the Department of Education to collaborate with
other agencies using existing resources.
President Clinton's New Education Proposals Cost Big
Bucks
The Administration would create 14 new education programs at a
cost of nearly $1.8 billion in fiscal year 1999 alone. The
President's proposed entitlement program to hire more teachers would
cost $12 billion over the next seven years. However, it is paid for
with a tobacco settlement that may never happen. At a time when the
American people are asking Congress to reform and rein in
entitlement programs, it is irresponsible for the President to
create new entitlement programs that are not fully paid.
The Administration proposes a $20 billion school construction
initiative to help underwrite the cost of financing new
construction. This would be divided into $19.4 billion for "school
modernization bonds" and an additional $2.4 billion in "qualified
zone academy bonds" that were created in the Taxpayer Relief Act of
1997. Both proposals provide tax credits in lieu of interest
payments for investors. The Committee recognizes the concerns of
parents living in areas that have overcrowded and/or crumbling
schools. However, asking the Federal government to become involved
in a traditional State and local issue raises many concerns. The
Committee has important questions such as: Will Federal involvement
raise the cost of local school construction by mandating higher
wages via Davis-Bacon? What criteria
will be used to select schools for funding? The President's plan
could erode local support for public schools by placing Washington
in the driver's seat with Congress as a "national school board."
Many States - most notably California - have already passed major
new construction initiatives running in the hundreds of millions of
dollars and they should be commended. A new Federal construction
program would, in essence, punish States and communities that
support their schools and reward those that don't.
The President has also proposed a child care package at the cost
of nearly $22 billion over five years through new programs plus
dramatic increases in funding for existing Federal programs. This is
in addition to $4 billion for child care already provided under the
Welfare Reform Bill in 1996. The Committee believes the answer to
better child care does not rest in more spending but in increasing
opportunities for parents to spend more time with their children.
The President's proposals focus only on preschool children in
paid child care, ignoring families that struggle to provide quality
care at home. Only 30 percent of preschool children are in paid
child care. The Committee believes that any legislation dealing with
child care should recognize this fact and not forget the seventy
percent of children cared for by a parent. The House agreed by
adopting House Concurrent Resolution 202, the Equitable Child Care
Resolution, which states that where any child care proposal is
debated, equal consideration should be given to families regardless
of whether their child is cared for by an at-home parent, a family
member, a neighbor or a child care center, by a vote of 409 to 0
(with three voting present).
Committee Legislative Priorities for the Workforce in
1998
Ensuring Fairness in the Workplace
The Worker Paycheck Fairness Act provides that unions must obtain
prior written consent from workers before collecting dues to be used
for non-collective bargaining reasons and to provide better
disclosure as to how dues are actually spent. The Act also provides
real enforcement modeled on the Family and Medical Leave Act by
making available attorney's fees and double damages. It also
prohibits a union from taking any adverse action against a member or
non-member who exercises rights under the Act. The Committee does
not believe i t is fair to take money from workers' paychecks
without their permission. America's workers have a right to know how
their union dues are spent and a right to choose whether to stop
money from being taken from their paychecks that isn't used for
legitimate union purposes.
The TEAM Act legislation removes impediments under the National
Labor Relations Act to the development of legitimate
employer-employee cooperative efforts in the workplace. Today,
global competition demands that American workers and their employers
work together. The Federal government should not stand in the way of
employees playing a meaningful role in addressing workplace issues.
The TEAM Act removes roadblocks in current law to workplace
cooperation while not undermining the ability of workers to choose
union representation.
Providing Security to Workers and Their Families
The Expansion of Portability and Health Insurance Coverage
(EPHIC) bill allows small businesses to pool together to purchase
health care under ERISA, the Federal law that protects the interests
of employees while giving employers the flexibility and regulatory
uniformity they need to offer employee health plans. EPHIC will help
millions of small business workers and their families get health
insurance by making insurance more: affordable, through expanding
health insurance coverage by lowering costs; accessible, through
increasing choice by removing barriers; and, secure, through
improving portability and coverage after job loss.
The Committee will also be considering legislation that would
modernize ERISA disclosure and health plan claims procedures so that
employees in managed health care plans would be assured of receiving
timely benefit determinations made by appropriate medical personnel
and based on objective scientific standards. Giving patients these
added procedural safeguards and access to important information
about how plans are administered will promote greater quality and
responsiveness throughout the employee health benefits
system.
Providing Fairness for Small Business and Employees
The Committee will be moving forward with a package of four bills
that, considered together, will help small employers defend
themselves against government bureaucracy; ensure that employees who
are entitled to reinstatement get their jobs back quickly while
preventing employers from being saddled with large backpay
liability; protect the right of employers to have a hearing to
present their case in certain representation cases; and, prevent the
use of Federal statutes or agencies for the sole purpose of
disrupting or inflicting economic harm on non-union employers.
These four bills are:
- Truth in Employment Act, H.R. 758, which makes clear
that an employer cannot hire someone who is not a bona fide
applicant. This bill addresses the harassment technique of
"salting," in which unions send paid or unpaid professional
union agents or members into nonunion workplace under the guise
of seeking employment. Increasingly, organized labor is using --
and abusing -- Federal labor laws, regulations and agencies to
promote the unions' agenda. While recognizing the rights of
workers to organize and join formal labor unions, the Truth in
Employment Act would prevent the use of Federal statutes or
agencies for the sole purpose of disrupting or inflicting
economic harm on non-union employers;
- Fair Hearing Act, H.R. 1595
, which requires the NLRB
to conduct hearings to determine when it is appropriate to
certify a single location bargaining unit where a labor
organization attempts to organize employees at one or more
facilities of a multi-facility employer. The bill simply
requires the Board to consider all of the relevant
factors - as the Board has done for decades - in making its
determination. It also preempts the need to add a rider to the
appropriations process, which has been done the past two years,
to prevent the Board from implementing a "one-size-fits-all"
rule for determining the appropriateness of a bargaining unit;
- Justice on Time Act, H.R. 1598
, which requires the
NLRB to issue a final decision within one year on all unfair
labor practice complaints where it is alleged that an employer
has discharged an employee in an attempt to encourage or
discourage union membership. Expeditious resolution of these
complaint would benefit all parties not only by ensuring swift
justice and timely reinstatement of a wronged employee, but also
by reducing the costs of litigation and backpay awards; and
- Fair Access to Indemnity and Reimbursement (FAIR)
Act
, which requires the NLRB to pay the attorney's fees
and expenses to small employers of modest means - including
businesses and labor organizations - who win their cases against
the NLRB. The bill would make sure that the Board considers
carefully the merits of an action before bringing it against a
small entity with few resources, and would ensure that these
smaller employers have an incentive to fight a case of
questionable merit.
The Committee will continue to work for reform of the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and plans to
consider several bills to make OSHA work better for employers and
employees. While the Clinton Administration has expressed its desire
to "reinvent" OSHA to make it less enforcement oriented and reduce
its regulatory burden on American employers, OSHA continues to act
contrary to those goals. For example, OSHA is developing new
regulations on "ergonomics" and "safety and health management" that
will cost American companies billions of dollars for uncertain
benefits. OSHA's budget calls for increased funding for enforcement
to implement the so-called "cooperative compliance program." While
OSHA is calling this program "cooperative" and "partnership," in
reality the program imposes requirements, such as ergonomics and
management standards, on companies that have not been adopted
through normal administrative procedures. As a result, OSHA's
authority to go forward with the program has been challenged in
Federal court, and the Committee believes that any funding for the
program should be withheld pending resolution of OSHA's authority to
implement the program.
Reforming Outdated Laws to Meet the Needs of the 21st
Century Workforce
The Committee is exploring proposals to update the Fair Labor
Standards Act, enacted in 1938, in order to accommodate the
realities of today's workplace to the benefit of both workers and
employers. Many of the provisions under current law impose confusing
and differing regulatory standards. In many situations, the law does
not reflect advances in technology (computers, communications,
faxes, etc.) and changes in business practices which have
dramatically changed the way in which workers perform the duties of
their jobs.
The Federal Employees' Compensation Act is a comprehensive
workers' compensation law for Federal employees that is designed to
provide coverage for work-related injuries or deaths. There are a
number of changes that could make FECA more reasonable (especially
when compared to the private sector), increase work incentives, and
to save money for the taxpayers, which the Committee will examine
this year.
Ensuring Taxpayer Money is Spent Fairly
The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations is reviewing the
invalidated 1996 election of the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters (IBT). The 1996 election was overturned as a result of a
complex network of schemes to funnel employer and IBT funds into the
Carey Campaign. Three top Carey aides were indicted and pleaded
guilty to the schemes, and the criminal investigation continues. A
rerun election is scheduled for summer 1998 at an estimated cost of
$7.4 million. The American taxpayers have already spent close to $18
million on the 1996 election. However, legislation included in two
FY 1998 appropriations bills has blocked additional spending of
Federal tax dollars for the Teamsters election. The Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations is examining the costs of the Teamsters
election, the reasons for the failure of the 1996 election, and the
effect of the illegal campaign contributions on the election. It is
our hope that as a result of these efforts, the Committee will be
considering legislative proposals to prevent these kinds of abuses
by union leadership against working Americans from ever happening
again.
Preparing America's Workforce for the Next Century
As the 21st Century approaches, the American people
must prepare to meet the challenges of a rapidly changing world
without knowing a great deal about the changes that will occur. The
American Worker Project aspires to develop a long-term vision and
common sense approach to deal with workplace issues of the future.
A series of roundtables have been held around the country to seek
input from individual American workers on how they view their jobs,
their companies, and the workplace in general. Academics, public
policy experts, business owners, locally elected officials and many
others will also be solicited for advice on the future of the
American worker in the 21st Century
workplace.
Committee Response to President Clinton's Fiscal Year 1999
Workforce Budget
The President's budget requests a $425 million increase in
Department of Labor discretionary spending in fiscal year 1999. The
President has requested an additional 298 full-time equivalent
positions in the U.S. Department of Labor. Nearly half of these new
positions (135 out of 298) would be in the Employment Standards
Administration. The Committee will carefully examine the performance
of programs in the Departments of Labor to determine how regulations
and requests for additional spending will be used to achieve their
goals.
The Committee will consider the 15 percent increase in funding
requested for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in
hearings this Spring. The Committee fully supports fair and
effective civil rights enforcement, but believes that any increased
funding should be tied to much-needed reforms in the way EEOC does
its work, including increased use of alternative dispute resolution,
improvements in the intake and investigation process, and a better
balance in resources between litigation and charge processing.
Careful scrutiny of the EEOC's pilot employment testers project is
also in order.
The Committee will also take a skeptical look at the significant
funding increase requested by the Department of Labor's Office of
Federal Contract Compliance Programs. 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 affirmative action during the last
Congress. Their difficulty 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 the Committee.
The Committee supports proposals promoting initiatives to make it
simpler for small businesses to establish pension and retirement
plans for their employees. The Committee will examine varying plans
to promote small business pension plan creation, including the
President's recent proposal which is similar to earlier Republican
initiatives. We will carefully review other retirement security
proposals and look forward to finding ways to promote retirement
savings building on the recent enactment of the Savings Are Vital to
Everyone's Retirement (SAVER) Act.
For some time, the Committee has maintained a watchful eye on the
Davis-Bacon Act. Past
investigations have shown that the Davis-Bacon wage setting
process is broken and that it invites fraud and abuse. As part of an
effort to clean-up the Act, Congress provided $3.75 million to the
Wage and Hour Division at the U.S. Department of Labor in FY 97 to
test and implement "improvements" in the Davis-Bacon wage setting
process. The FY 98 appropriation bill requested that all Davis-Bacon wage surveys be
randomly sampled to verify the accuracy of the forms. Recently, the
Department of Labor's Office of Inspector General issued a report
detailing Wage and Hour's spending of over $3 million in
taxpayer dollars. The report raises troubling questions -
especially given the flawed nature of the Davis-Bacon program. Before
additional funding is provided for the Davis-Bacon Act wage
determination process, close and careful scrutiny is needed.
Committee Priorities for Fiscal Year 1999 Spending
The Committee will work to ensure adequate FY 1999 funding for
programs that reach and are supported by local communities. The top
priority continues to be adequate funding to relieve the mandates on
local schools under IDEA. Under the IDEA Amendments of 1997, when
Federal government spending on the IDEA Part B program reaches $4.1
billion, local communities can get fiscal relief from the
disproportionately high share of the costs they now bear. Above this
level, as the Federal government begins to pay its promised share
for the mandate, local communities may begin to reduce their share
of special education spending. This would share costs more equitably
and free up scarce local funds for other important educational
activities. For example, communities could use funds to hire regular
classroom teachers or additional special education teachers to
reduce class size. The Committee believes we must make good
on our promises and meet this mandate on local schools by increasing
funding for IDEA above its current level of $3.8 billion.
The Committee will continue to support funding for programs that
direct funds to local communities, are flexible for meeting local
needs, and have been proven effective. The Committee also supports
an increase in the maximum Pell grant award again this year.
As discussed earlier, one of the more difficult challenges in the
Higher Education Act authorization is the change in interest rates
scheduled to occur on July 1, 1998 and the change in CBO scoring of
student loan programs. In order to preserve the Federal Family
Education Loan Program and student access to loans, it is vital that
the Budget Committee include sufficient funding in the fiscal year
1999 budget resolution to deal with this change in a way that both
benefits students and maintains the stability of the guaranteed loan
program.
As in the past, the Committee expects that appropriate amounts
will be allocated within the Department of Labor to encourage
voluntary compliance and educational assistance to help employers
and unions better understand their responsibilities under the laws
with which they must comply.
The Committee will also continue to examine agency documents
required by the Government Performance and Results Act to determine
program effectiveness and will continue oversight efforts to
identify programs in need of reform. We have been concerned that
many agencies have made slow progress in fully complying with the
requirements of the Results Act. Although improvements have been
made, we do not believe that agency plans have reached the high
quality levels we expect. We will continue to demand that agencies
show the American taxpayers the results they are getting for their
tax dollars in a clear, accurate, and timely fashion.
|