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 2^nd session of the 105^th Congress.

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 21^st 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.

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. 

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 4^th and 8^th grade Federal tests, as proposed by the Administration, shall be determined in future months, and subject to the will of Congress.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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. 

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.

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.

• 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.

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.

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.

As the 21^st 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 21^st Century workplace.

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.

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.