Buck McKeon

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Peterson], a new member of the committee who has been very active in working on this bill.

Mr. McKEON. No, Mr. Chairman, they just have more flexibility at the State level to determine the use rather than we making the decision here in Washington.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, the States arrive at that formula through the collaborative process working with the State legislatures.

Mr. McKEON. In all States, Mr. Chairman. It is required in the bill.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Graham] serves as the vice chairman of the subcommittee, and has been very diligent in working to make this bill better. We would have no objection to this amendment.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 1385, the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections and conforming changes to the bill.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Normally, I am against commissions. I am a strong fiscal conservative, and I think we have to be very careful how we spend our money. But the problem has been outlined, and what we have done is tried to keep a small efficient number in the Commission. We have seven people, four appointed by the majority, three appointed by the minority. We think that we will be able to get the work done efficiently on a cost-effective basis and come back with some ways that we can help to solve this problem. I think it is something that the people of this country are really paying attention to. They have real concerns, those who have students in college, those who are students in college, those who have children who will be going to college, something very important to the people of this Nation. I urge all Members to support this amendment.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon] that the House suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H.Res. 145.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 145) providing for the concurrence of the House with the amendment of the Senate to H.R. 914, with amendments.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal], a member of the committee.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt].

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], the former Governor.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers, but I yield myself such time as I may consume to take just a minute to thank those on the other side who have been so helpful in bringing us to this point. As my colleagues know, we have been working on this committee in a bipartisan nature. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], the ranking member, has been very supportive, even though he does have some concerns on this. He has worked with us to make this bill better, to bring it to the floor, and supports it at this point. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Luther] has been very helpful and very supportive on this bill, and I would like to thank him, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Ford], and others. Once one starts naming names, it is a danger because they always leave out some people that have been so helpful, but I would like to thank those Members and others who have been helpful, and especially our staff who have worked night and day to get this to this point, because it is urgent that we get this bill passed quickly so that we can get the results back in time to use them for the higher ed reauthorization.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett], a member of the committee.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the chairman of the full committee.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 914. H.R. 914 was originally passed by the House of Representatives on March 11, 1997, under suspension of the rules. It made two simple amendments to the student right to know provisions of the Higher Education Act. These amendments changed the date for which schools had to report graduation rates in order to lessen the reporting requirements faced by schools while improving the quality of information that students would receive. On April 16, 1997, the Senate passed H.R. 914 after adding impact aid technical amendments to the legislation. Those amendments would: extend the deadline for filing for equalized States which deduct impact aid revenue in their computation of general State aid for education; extend the hold harmless for section 8002 payments for property to cover fiscal years 1997 through the year 2000; and add expenditure data as a factor to be considered when determining a school district's financial profile under the section of the law, 8003(f), dealing with heavily impacted school districts. Today, we are again considering H.R. 914 under suspension of the rules. The legislation before us today includes the impact aid technical amendments passed by the other body and one additional impact aid technical amendment added by the House to clarify that appropriations over and above the amount appropriated for section 8002 for fiscal year 1997 are to be distributed to all eligible school districts. However, it also includes one more very important piece of legislation. H.R. 914, as it is before us today, includes the Cost of Higher Education Review Act of 1997. I would like to focus my remarks on these very important provisions. In today's technology and information-based economy, getting a high quality postsecondary education is more important than ever. For many Americans it is the key to the American dream. Let me tell my colleagues how I see higher education in the future. I would hope that men and women, young and old, will have access to postsecondary education when they need it. Some would go to college for undergraduate or graduate degrees. Others would choose to go to school or go back to school for much shorter periods of time in order to improve or upgrade their schools for a better job and a better future. Many could just take a class or two from home over the Internet. But I want to see every American who so chooses have the option of receiving a quality education at an affordable price. As my colleagues know, the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education, Training and Life-Long Learning has already begun the process of reauthorizing the Higher Education Act, which will provide $35 billion in student financial aid this year alone. We have been holding hearings around the country on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, and a consistent question we get from students and parents is why is college so expensive and why are college prices rising so quickly. However, my interest in higher education goes well beyond the role I play as chairman of that subcommittee. I am a parent and a grandparent, and I know students who are pursuing or will pursue a postsecondary education. I have constituents, students and parents, who are worried about their abilities to afford a college education. Historically, the cost of getting a postsecondary education has increased at a rate slightly above the cost of living. However, a recent General Accounting Office report tells us that over the last 15 years the price of attending a 4-year public college has increased over 234 percent while the median household income has risen by only 82 percent and the CPI only 74 percent. A recent survey of college freshmen found that concern over college affordability is at a 30-year high. Parents and students across the country are understandably worried about the rising cost of higher education. In order to control the cost of obtaining a postsecondary education, parents, students, and policymakers must work together with colleges and universities to slow tuition inflation, or for many Americans college will become unaffordable. That is not to say that there are not affordable schools. There are some affordable schools and there are college presidents who are committed to keeping costs low. There are schools that are trying very innovative things to reduce tuition prices. However, the trend in higher education pricing is truly alarming. This trend is especially alarming in that it only seems to apply to higher education. There are many endeavors and many businesses that must keep pace with changing technologies and Federal regulations. However, in order to stay affordable to their customers and stay competitive in the market, they manage to hold cost increases to a reasonable level. The Cost of Higher Education Review Act contained in H.R. 914 will establish a commission on the cost of higher education. This commission will have a very short life span. Over a 4-month period the commission will study the reasons why tuitions have risen so quickly and dramatically, and report on what schools, the administration and the Congress can do to stabilize or reduce tuitions. There is a great deal of conflicting information around the country with respect to college costs. This commission will be comprised of seven individuals with expertise in business and business cost reduction programs, economics, and education administration. Their job will be to analyze this information and give us a true picture of why costs continue to outpace inflation and what can be done to stop this trend. Members of the commission will be appointed by the House and Senate leadership and the Secretary of Education. The commission will have 4 months to perform its duties. The commission will then sunset within 2 months of finishing its job. The cost for this commission will not exceed $650,000. Mr. Speaker, as I noted earlier, this year we will be reauthorizing the Higher Education Act, which will provide $35 billion this year alone in Federal student financial aid. As we go through this process, our goals will be to make higher education more affordable, simplify the student aid system, and stress academic quality. In order to update and improve the Higher Education Act in a way that truly helps parents and students, a thorough understanding of tuition trends will be essential. The Cost of Higher Education Review Act will give us that information and shed light on a topic which is of utmost concern to our constituents. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 914. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I rise today in support of H.R. 5, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Amendments Act. This legislation is a result of several years work with input from individuals and organizations representing the disabled, the education community, and parents. The outcome of this great effort is legislation that will substantially improve the current system of education for the disabled. In fact, this is the first major overhaul of the IDEA legislation in over 20 years. I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] and all the Members involved in this vast undertaking. H.R. 5 contains key reforms which increase parent participation, better connect students to the regular curriculum, provide support for the unique needs of individual students, provide more dollars to the classroom, reduce the costs of litigation, and reduce paperwork and process costs. There is no question these reforms will create a better system. I ask all to support the passage of this bill.

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 on H.Res. 145.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute to a special friend and dedicated public servant whom we lost April 28, 1997, in Santa Clarita, CA. Dr. Richard Rioux was the executive director of the Los Angeles County Antelope Valley Rehabilitation Centers in Acton and Warm Springs where he worked hands-on with more than 22,000 residents recovering from alcohol and drug addiction. Here he pioneered the development of an innovative literacy training program which has helped thousands of people attain the skills and knowledge necessary to be productive and responsible citizens. Born in Fall River, MA, Richard moved to California in 1958, where he later became a Fulbright Scholar and student at California State University Northridge. Having earned his bachelor's degree, he then moved onto his doctorate in history from the University of Southern California. Along with his accomplishments as an award-winning photographer, columnist, and author, Richard served as the founder and first president of his beloved Stevenson Ranch Town Council. In addition he was an avid sports enthusiast, having run 26 marathons and having climbed Mt. Whitney seven times. Most importantly, Richard was a devoted husband to his wife, Suzanne and father to Regina, Stephanie, Natasha, and Jeremy. Known as ``Doc Rioux,'' Richard could often be found in old town Newhall helping local merchants, seniors, and students. His warm smile and constant fellowship inspired others to embrace life's hardships and successes with remarkable strength and courage. Let me today join with his family and friends in remembering Richard Rioux and thanking him for the encouragement and love he gave our community. May the Lord bless him and keep him well. We will miss him and cherish his memory.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Cost of Higher Education Review Act of 1997. In today's technology and information based economy, getting a high quality postsecondary education is more important than ever. For many Americans, it is the key to the American dream. As Chairman of the Subcommittee with jurisdiction over Federal higher education policy, I am responsible for the programs which provide Federal help in getting this education. However, my interest in higher education goes well beyond the role I play as Chairman. I am a parent and a grandparent. I know students who are pursuing or will pursue a postsecondary education. I have constituents, students and parents, who are worried about their ability to afford a college education. Historically, the cost of getting a postsecondary education has increased at a rate slightly above the cost of living. However, a recent GAO report tells us that over the last 15 years the price of attending a 4-year public college has increased 234 percent, while the median household income has risen by only 82 percent, and the CPI only 74 percent. A recent survey of college freshmen found that concern over college affordability is at a 30-year high. Parents and students across the country are understandably worried about the rising cost of a college education. In order to control the cost of obtaining a college education, parents, students, and policy makers must work together with colleges and universities to slow tuition inflation, or for many Americans, college will become unaffordable. This is not to say that there are not affordable schools. There are still some affordable schools and there are college presidents who are committed to keeping costs low. There are schools that are trying very innovative things to reduce tuition prices. However, the trend in college pricing is truly alarming. This trend is especially alarming in that it only seems to apply to higher education. There are many endeavors and many businesses that must keep pace with changing technologies and Federal regulations. However, in order to stay affordable to their customers and stay competitive in the market, they manage to hold cost increases to a reasonable level. The legislation I am introducing today will establish a commission on the cost of higher education. This commission will have a very short life-span. Over a 4 month period, the commission will study the reasons why tuitions have risen so quickly and dramatically, and report on what schools, the administration, and the Congress can do to stabilize or reduce tuitions. There is a great deal of conflicting information floating around the country with respect to college costs. This commission will be comprised of seven individuals with experience and expertise in business and business cost reduction programs, economics, and education administration. Their job will be to analyze this information and give us a true picture of why costs continue to outpace inflation and what can be done to stop this trend. Members of the commission will be appointed by the House and Senate leadership and the Secretary of Education. The commission will have 4 months to perform its duties. The commission will then sunset within 2 months of finishing its job. The cost for this commission will not exceed $650,000. Mr. Speaker, this year we will be reauthorizing the Higher Education Act, which will provide $35 billion this year alone in Federal student financial aid. As we go through this process, our goals will be to: Make higher education more affordable; Simplify the student aid system; and Stress academic quality. In order to update and improve the Higher Education Act in a way that truly helps parents and students, a thorough understanding of tuition trends will be essential. The legislation I'm introducing today will give us that information, and shed light on a topic which is of the utmost concern to our constituents. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort, and to cosponsor this important legislation.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, today I am joining the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, Mr. Goodling, and the ranking Democrat on the Postsecondary Education, Training, and Life-Long Learning Subcommittee, Mr. Kildee, to introduce important, bipartisan legislation to reform this Nation's fragmented and duplicative array of employment, training, and literacy programs. The Employment, Training, and Literacy Enhancement Act will consolidate over 70 Federal programs through the establishment of three block grants to States and localities for the provision of employment, training, and literacy services, and through amendments to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The bill would accomplish 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. By amending, consolidating, and improving existing programs established under the Job Training Partnership Act [JTPA], the Adult Education Act, the Wagner Peyser Act, and other statutes, we hope to build on the many positive reforms that are already underway in States and local communities, while encouraging further reform and breaking down barriers to State and local program integration. The three block grants that are established under division A of the bill would comprise each State's employment, training, and literacy system--an adult employment and training opportunities grant; a disadvantaged youth employment and training opportunities grant; and an adult education and family literacy grant. While the legislation separately amends the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, vocational rehabilitation programs are not block granted with job training. Specifically, title I would drastically reform the current JTPA State and local delivery structure, as well as its fiscal and performance accountability provisions. The bill provides maximum authority to States and localities in the design and operation of their individual employment, training, and literacy systems. We reduce administrative requirements, paperwork, duplicative planning, reporting, and data collection requirements and eliminate bureaucracy throughout the system. At the State level, Governors would pull together representatives of the State legislature, key State agency heads, and leaders from business, local communities, and others to develop a single State plan and performance measurement system for the three block grants and for programs authorized under the Wagner-Peyser Act. Governors are also asked to designate work force development areas throughout the State, for the distribution of funds and service delivery under much of the system. To ensure the involvement of employers in the design and implementation of local systems, the bill requires the establishment of local, employer-led, work force development boards. These boards would provide policy guidance and oversight over local systems, and would be responsible for the establishment of local full-service employment and training delivery systems--easily accessible single points of entry into the employment and training system. Local elected officials would continue to play an important role in the development and implementation of the local system. Title II of the bill amends JTPA by merging its existing nonschool- based summer employment and year-round programs--resulting in the disadvantaged youth employment and training opportunities block grant. The main focus of reform under this block grant is to increase the focus of these 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. Under the bill, communities may continue to carry out programs such as summer youth employment, if linked to additional learning opportunities. The block grant is designed to result in improved academic and occupational opportunities for disadvantaged youth in the community, as well as completion of high school, or its equivalent, and other positive results such as placement and retention in employment, or continuation into postsecondary education or training. States and localities would also be required to show how the hardest to serve disadvantaged youth are served within their programs. Title III of the bill would amend the current adult employment and training programs authorized under JTPA by establishing a single delivery system for all adults, that maximizes individual choice in the selection of occupations and training providers. The bill encourages an employment first approach to job training--providing training services to individuals who are unable to obtain initial employment, or employment that will lead to self-sufficiency, through core services and intensive job search assistance. With limited exceptions, training services for adults would be provided through the use of vouchers-- referred to as skill grants in the bill--distributed through an easily accessible full-service employment and training delivery system. While a single employment and training system would be established through this block grant, funding for dislocated workers would remain protected. States would continue to be required to use State reserve funds to provide rapid response assistance--for dislocated workers--and additional assistance to areas that experience substantial worker dislocation. The bulk of funding under the adult training system would be sent to local work force development areas for the establishment of full-service employment and training delivery systems; provision of core or up-front services through the full service system; provision of intensive services; and the provision of training services. 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 and the National Literacy Act, consolidating numerous categorical programs into a block grant to the States. While this title is maintained as a separate act, adult education and literacy programs share planning and performance provisions with the job training system, pulling adult education and family literacy programs into the broader system. This is particularly important because a large number of under-and unemployed individuals will need to improve their literacy skills before they can participate in job training programs. The legislation requires States to send 85 percent of available funds to a variety of local service providers to be used for adult education programs, English as a second language programs and family literacy programs. All set asides and caps have been removed, allowing States to use the funds to meet the unique literacy needs of their citizens. The bill contains continued authorization for the National Institute for Literacy and for national activities conducted by the Department of Education. In the area of vocational rehabilitation, the bill amends the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 by extending its authorization through 2000. It also makes some minor substantive changes to the law that promote consumer choice and promote State agency accountability. The amendments would create a limited written plan at the option of the person with a disability. This alternative to the statutorily required individualized written rehabilitation plan, would allow individuals with disabilities who know what they are seeking from the vocational rehabilitation system to obtain it without wasting unnecessary paperwork and time. Other changes include a shift of current State plan requirements to standard and indicators, allowing agencies to focus on definable indicators instead of malleable process monitoring; and a deletion of a number of out-of-date and unnecessary State plan obligations. Finally, the amendments also repeal 25 programs authorized by the act for which Congress has never appropriated funds. The skills of this Nation's work force are more important today than ever before--both to American workers and to U.S. competitiveness. However our current patchwork of Federal programs is not the answer. The Employment, Training and Literacy Enhancement Act is a first, important step in addressing our long-term work force preparation needs by helping States and local communities to make sense out of our current confusing array of training programs. I thank our distinguished chairman for his insight and leadership on this vital issue, and I thank the ranking Democrat Member of our Subcommittee, Mr. Kildee, for his valuable input in development of this legislation. I invite all of my colleagues to join with us in this dramatic effort to overhaul our current employment, training, and literacy programs.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to announce that on Saturday, April 19, 1997, Santa Clarita Valley's Boy Scout Troop 2, will celebrate its 75th anniversary. Sponsored by the Kiwanans Club of Valencia, Troop 2 remains the largest troop in the valley, with over 130 boys currently registered. Throughout the years, Troop 2 has served almost 3,000 boys and produced 65 Eagle Scouts while managing to remain an active part of the community. From helping distribute emergency water supplies in the aftermath of the 1994 Northridge earthquake to participating in the annual 4th of July parade, Troop 2's volunteer efforts serve as a reminder of the dedication and commitment of the Boy Scouts of America. On behalf of the citizens of the Santa Clarita Valley, I am honored today to help recognize the tremendous accomplishments of Troop 2.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1 which is pro-worker and pro-family legislation. I commend the leadership and our chairman for bringing such an important bill to the floor. H.R. 1 will allow employees more flexibility in balancing the demands of their jobs and families without compromising their worker rights. To vote against this bill is to deny private sector workers an option that their public sector counterparts now enjoy with great success. Over 75 percent of employees surveyed said they would like the option of choosing comp time or cash. Mr. Chairman, this bill is about options for employees. They can take their pay in cash or time. When they work overtime they get time and a half, or if they decide to take it in time they still get time and a half. At the bipartisan retreat a couple of weeks ago, I had the opportunity to discuss this issue with a member of the Capitol Hill police force who does have the opportunity of choosing comp or cash. He told me that at this point in his life, time is very often more important to him now than money. He is fortunate enough to have already had the option of comp time over cash wages, and it is a choice that he greatly values. Were he to fall on hard times or need the cash more, he could fall back and take the cash instead of the comp time. H.R. 1 would provide this same option for private sector employees. Mr. Chairman, this bill is about giving employees and employers more flexibility. Frankly, my experience tells me that this decision should be made in the workplace between the employer and the employee rather than here in Washington by politicians. Finally, I commend the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger] for insuring there are adequate protections in the legislation to insure that no employee can be coerced or forced into a particular option. It is a decision that they discuss and work out with the employer. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1 is about family flexibility and choice for employees which we should be giving to all Americans. Vote in favor of H.R. 1.