Buck McKeon

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and commend him for his leadership and the work he has done to bring us to this point on this debate. The gentleman's amendment would prohibit funds under this bill from being used by the Clinton administration for a new Federal testing program in grades four to eight. Mr. Chairman, there is no question that our K-12 education system needs reform and attention, but an arbitrary new Federal testing system is not the answer nor the cure- all. There are already a number of tests that continue to be administered. In fact, in 1997 the Federal Government spent approximately $540 million in testing students. The question is, when you have a test, what do you test? I think we have heard the administration talk about when you have a test, you have to have standards. The question is, who sets the standards? If you have a Federal test, I guess it would be the Federal Government setting the standards. What is the next step? I spent 9 years on a local school board. My wife was a PTA president. We have reared six children. We have 15 grandchildren. We have real concerns about the Federal Government setting their standards and setting testing. The administration now wants to move forward and implement new testing without input or authorization from Congress. As a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I, along with my committee colleagues, would like the opportunity to evaluate and study any such proposal. I encourage my colleagues to support the prohibition of this new, unauthorized Federal testing proposal. Let us do what local school boards are asking. Let us take some of the Federal regulation off of their backs. Some of the testing that we now have let us take off of their backs. Let us let them be free to do the things that are best for children. That is what our children need to move forward.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for yielding time to me, and thank him for the good work he has done on bringing this bill to the floor and on this ongoing debate that we constantly have on the B-2 bomber. I have not yet heard the other side, those in opposition, who are so strong in their opposition to this plane, what they figure we would use if we did not have this plane. I know there has been some talk of possibly another kind of bomber somewhere down the road, but there has been, what, $15 billion, $20 billion spent on R&D on this plane. I cannot see anyone here in this body that would begin to propose $15 billion to $20 billion R&D to build a new aircraft. This is the cheapest plane we could buy at this time. This is the only plane that has a production line, even though it is now being closed up, that does have a production line, one that the manpower is there, the technology is there; and we are in the process of taking this apart, wasting all of that money that was spent. I think that is something that really, it would be wonderful if we could look into the future and say no, we will never need another long-range bomber. We need to stand up and defend this plane to defend our service people.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for all the work he has done on this bill. As my colleagues know, I had a speech prepared, but I think we are to the point on this debate after many years, that everything has been said and everyone has not said it yet, so I would like to say something a little different. I had a new grandson born today, John Wells Morrison III, and as my colleagues know, my big concern is that when he is my age he is still here, and I am really concerned that when we determine that we can foresee 20 and 30 years out into the future and say that we no longer need this kind of equipment, I have real concern because it is not going to matter to me, I am not going to be here. But I am concerned about my 15 grandchildren, and I think that I have been where this plane is built, I have seen the capability of this plane. And then when we hear like the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson, who had to go to war, fly a mission that he was ill-equipped to fly, the plane was not the right plane for the mission, and yet he had to fly into harm's way and then spend 7 years in a prisoner-of-war camp, I think it is criminal that we would send our young people out with equipment that is not the best that we can provide them with. Mr. Chairman, we need this plane, and we are talking about nine, nine planes. How many planes did we have flying in World War II? And in Vietnam? And in Desert Storm? We are talking nine planes to give us three wings, three divisions, that we can place around the world that would be a strong deterrent, strong help. We need this. Defeat this amendment.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1119, the National Defense Authorization Act. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], the chairman, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], the ranking member, for their work in bringing this product to the floor. I would like to use my time to discuss an issue of vital importance that we will be considering as part of this bill. This issue involves future production of the B-2 Stealth bomber. A lot of people think I am supportive of the B-2 because it is built in my district and simply is my responsibility to provide jobs for my constituents. While we all know that jobs are important, this is not my motivation. At one time it was, but the more I have learned about the B-2 and its importance to our defense, the more supportive I have become of this plane. I think we need to look beyond the short term, beyond the issue of jobs in our districts, beyond the next election. We need to look down the road 30 or 40 years from now. What kind of world will our children and our grandchildren live in during the year 2020 or 2030? Who will our adversaries be? We can speculate on the answer to these questions, but we must also be prepared to defend our national security against whatever happens in the future. The B-2 bomber is cutting-edge technology that is one of the cornerstones of our future national defense strategy. Could our future leaders depend on 70- or 80-year-old B-52's to defend our interests 30 years from now? I do not think so. Since World War I, every time we cut the defense budget, every time we cut back, we have had to rebuild again at a cost both financial and at great loss of human life. While the B-2 was conceived during the cold war, it is not a cold war weapon. Instead, it is a deterrent. And it is deterrence that helped us win the cold war and guard our Nation from the threat of outside aggression. We will have ample opportunity to debate the B-2 as this bill is considered. We must remember, however, that we have already cut 18 Army divisions down to 10 and 24 fighter wings down to 13 since Desert Storm, and we are reducing the presence of U.S. forces overseas. Authorizing the production of additional B-2's will allow the United States to compensate for these and other reductions and deter future aggression. I respectfully urge defeat of the Dellums amendment and passage of this Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, maybe I misunderstood the gentlewoman, but I thought she said the Governors have 100 percent jurisdiction. They do not. In this area, 70 percent passes through on existing formula. They have 30 percent that they are able to use through the collaborative process to reach severely disadvantaged youth.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, the Governors get 30 percent to use where they find the need is greatest throughout the State.

Mr. McKEON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens]. It would continue the Summer Youth Employment Program as a stand-alone program. Our bill, H.R. 1385, consolidates the Summer Youth Employment Program and the year-round youth program under the Job Training Partnership Act. The bill continues to allow funds to be spent on summer employment activities. In fact, summer employment that is linked to academic and occupational learning opportunities is now an essential element of the disadvantaged youth block grant. But this legislation does not continue it as a separate program. The main purpose of the bill pertaining to disadvantaged youth programs is that we should not require stand-alone summer employment programs anymore that do not target the hardest to serve youth at the expense of more comprehensive disadvantaged youth programs. This bill assumes a consolidation of the summer and the year-round programs, and it assumes the consolidation of funding for these programs as well. It does not repeal the summer program. It just makes it part of a more comprehensive effort at serving our hardest-to-serve, disadvantaged youth. The bill refocuses disadvantaged youth programs on providing academic and occupational learning opportunities, on getting kids back into school, in addition to providing employment experiences. The bill leaves the decision to localities on how to provide services. This is the main purpose of the bill, is getting the authority down to the local governments where they are best suited to handle and make these decisions. In the en bloc package of amendments we have added language clarifying that summer employment opportunities will be an essential element, that was part of our en bloc amendment earlier this morning, in disadvantaged youth programs. Local work force development areas have sole discretion on determining the proportion of funds that will go for summer employment and for year round disadvantaged youth services, from funds made available under the substate formula; and at a minimum, 70 percent of the funds going to local areas under the youth opportunity employment training grant be allocated within the State through the existing formula under JTPA. As I said, this is part of the agreement that has been reached with the Governors, the counties, the local boards, the local people that will be making this decision. Acceptance of the Owens amendment would totally undo consolidation in our bill for disadvantaged youth programs and would result in hurting the hardest-to-serve youth, particularly school dropouts who are in need of a comprehensive mix of services. In addition, this amendment goes against this agreement that we made earlier with the Governors, the State legislatures and the counties who supported this approach in the bill. In summary, this amendment is the exact opposite of what we are all attempting to do here today. That is, consolidate the job training and employment programs, provide increased flexibility to States and localities in determining what programs work best for them. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the gentleman's amendment. We agree with what he is trying to do, and we will make sure we will work that out in accordance with his wishes.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] for his graciousness, and for thanking the members of the staff, and would like to add my thanks, also. Mary Clagett has worked, what, 6 or 8 years on this. All of those who have worked so hard, we want to thank them. Many people see us standing up here, and we are the ones that finally get the final praise for what has been done. They are the ones that have done all of the work to pull us together to help make it possible, and we want to thank them greatly for this effort.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul], another new member of the committee.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the former Governor, the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle].

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], who has been helpful in making the bill better. (Mr. SMITH of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Hill].

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett], a member of the committee.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], a member of the committee. (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of H.R. 1385, the Employment, Training, and Literacy Enhancement Act of 1997. This bill is an important step in addressing the Nation's long-term work force preparation needs by helping States and local communities to make sense out of our current confusing array of employment, training and literacy programs. The bill accomplishes long overdue reform, consolidating over 60 Federal programs through the establishment of three block grants to States and local communities for the provision of such services and through amendments to the Rehabilitation Act. It accomplishes key reforms in this country's job training system by building on the three principles of individual choice, quality training for the 21st century, and the transfer of resources and authority for employment, training and literacy programs to States and local communities. For youth, we amend the JTPA's current disadvantaged youth programs, increasing the focus of such programs on longer term academic and occupational training rather than short-term employment fixes, requiring that all employment experiences under these programs be tied to academic and occupational learning opportunities and prioritizing services for hard-to-serve disadvantaged youth, including school dropouts. For adults we establish a single delivery system for adult employment and training that maximizes individual choice in the selection of occupations and training providers. The bill encourages an employment- first approach to job training that will greatly compliment our efforts in welfare reform, where individuals purchase training services through their use of vouchers when in need of skilled training. Not only will this legislation result in improved services to dislocated workers, but it will also result in enhanced services provided to welfare recipients who must make the transition from welfare to work. Title V of the bill amends the current Adult Education Act, consolidating existing adult education and family literacy programs into flexible block grants to States. This portion of the bill includes important linkages to employment and training programs to ensure that individuals seeking employment and training services have the literacy skills they need in order to succeed. With regard to vocational rehabilitation, the bill extends the authorization through the year 2000, allowing the 106th Congress to comprehensively review the Rehabilitation Act. It also streamlines the paperwork requirements of the title 1 vocational rehabilitation program, saving resources and increasing client choice. This legislation will not only provide the flexibility that States and local communities need to vastly improve their employment and training efforts, but it will provide individuals that are in need of these services with the information, choice and resources that they need to become skilled and gainfully employed. Unfortunately, there is a great deal of misunderstanding about this bill. This legislation is written to empower individuals, not the Federal Government, to make decisions about their own lives and their individual employment and training needs. The bill significantly reduces the involvement of the Federal Government in the design and operation of these programs. Because Federal job training programs are permanently authorized, if we do nothing today, we will keep the status quo and programs will continue to be funded with no reform or reduction in Federal bureaucracy. In fact, it is likely that the budget will contain increased funding for employment and training for welfare recipients, another new program on top of many others. We cannot afford to continue to operate in this fashion. We need the Employment, Training, and Literacy Enhancement Act that will allow local communities to make sense out of these programs. And if the budget does contain increased funding for services to welfare recipients, we must ensure that this system is fully utilized so that we do not add yet another program to our growing list of employment, training and literacy programs. The skills of this Nation's work force are more important today than ever before. This legislation will go far to help States and local communities to reform employment, training and literacy programs that address the individual skill needs of their citizens, and it will go far to empower individuals to break the cycle of dependency that has plagued our country for far too long. I want to take this opportunity to thank the Members of our committee for their contributions in the development of this legislation; in particular, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Goodling, for his insight and leadership over the years on this issue. He has been working on this for many years, and I am proud to see that it is coming to fruition. I also want to thank the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay], and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], who has worked so hard and worked closely with us to develop this legislation in a truly bipartisan fashion. I would also like to thank the administration for working with us to make this effort one that is likely to be enacted this year. Finally, I am pleased to announce that the National Governors' Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the National Association of Counties have reached an important agreement with regard to this legislation that will be reflected in an en bloc package of amendments that I plan to offer later this morning. And I would like to thank these organizations for all their efforts to help us in the development of this bill. In fact, all three of these organizations, in addition to the American Association of Community Colleges, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Society for Human Resource Management, the Computing Technology Industry Association, and others have written in support of H.R. 1385. This is a good bill that will help the country's workers gain the skills they need to succeed in today's work force. I urge my colleagues' support of this important legislation.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am offering an en bloc package of amendments which focus on providing greater flexibility to States and localities as they work to carry out meaningful job training reform. These amendments reflect several months of effort by the National Governors' Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the National Association of Counties in coming to a consensus with respect to several key parts of this legislation. In working with the members of these organizations, we have not only been able to gain their support for this legislation but we have made substantial improvements to the bill. Specifically, the amendments included in this en bloc accomplish the following: Ensures that members of the State collaborative process used for design and implementation at the State level of programs under this act represent diverse regions of the State; increases flexibility with respect to membership of local work force development boards; increases the roll of chief local elected officials by authorizing them to develop local plans in partnership with local work force development boards; increases public accountability of local work force development boards; further clarifies the role of each State with respect to determining State expected levels of performance; and provides a process through which formal State and local comments on this process may be transmitted annually to Congress; expedites the process by which Governors may enforce performance accountability; provides States increased flexibility to initiate reforms by extending certain waivers of waiver provisions and providing a limited grandfather for States having passed comprehensive employment and training reform legislation; maintains existing State-passed formulas with respect to a majority of the funds under the block grants while providing increased discretion to States for the allocation of those funds not distributed under the formula; provides greater local discretion with respect to carrying out summer youth programs and clarifies that summer employment activities are an essential element of disadvantaged youth programs; requires that the Secretary must sign off on State plans unless they determine in writing within 90 days of receipt of the plan that it is inconsistent with the specific provisions of this act; and ensures the ability of any unit of local government with a population of 500,000 or more to be designated as a work force development area. Finally, this package of amendments also makes several modifications to further streamline the adult education provisions of this act, and also includes several additional technical and conforming changes to the bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer amendment No. 1 printed in the Record.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1385, the bill just passed.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, these amendments are those changes that have been worked out by Republicans, Democrats, and the administration since the full committee markup, as requested by the chairman and ranking member at that markup. The amendment will streamline the current individualized written rehabilitation plan as the individualized plan for employment, add a collection of consumer choice provisions to the act to increase the ability of individuals with disabilities to control the content, scope, and services of the program, add provisions to emphasize that self- employment or starting your own business is a viable vocational outcome, transfer of certain existing obligations of States under the Disabilities Technology-related Assistance Act to the Rehabilitation Act, and technical refinements to amendments that were included in the marked-up bill. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this amendment.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 3.