79–006

106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 106–642

TRAINING AND EDUCATION FOR AMERICAN WORKERS ACT

OF 2000

MAY 25, 2000.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of

the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. GOODLING, from the Committee on Education and the

Workforce, submitted the following

REPORT

together with

ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS

[To accompany H.R. 4402]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Education and the Workforce, to whom was

referred the bill (H.R. 4402) to amend the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 to improve the use

of amounts deposited into the H–1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account for demonstration programs and projects to provide technical

skills training for occupations for which there is a high demand for

skilled workers, and for other purposes, having considered the

same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

The amendment is as follows:

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof

the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Training and Education for American Workers Act

of 2000’’.

SEC. 2. USE OF H–1B NONIMMIGRANT PETITIONER FEES.

Section 414(c) of the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act

of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2916 note) is amended to read as follows:

‘‘(c) DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL SKILLS

TRAINING FOR WORKERS; LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE, AND

READING TEACHERS.—

‘‘(1) TECHNICAL SKILLS TRAINING FOR WORKERS.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Labor shall use 75 percent of the

funds made available under section 286(s)(2) of the Immigration and NaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:21 May 31, 2000 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR642.XXX pfrm02 PsN: HR642
2

tionality Act (8 U.S.C. 1356(s)(2)) to establish demonstration programs or

projects to provide technical skills training for employed and unemployed

workers for any skill shortage related to a specialty occupation (as defined

in section 214(i)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.

1184(i)(1)).

‘‘(B) GRANTS.—The Secretary of Labor shall award grants to carry out

programs or projects described in subparagraph (A) to—

‘‘(i) local workforce investment boards established under section 117

of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2832);

‘‘(ii) regional consortia of local boards described in clause (i); or

‘‘(iii) in conjunction with, and with the active participation of, local

boards described in clause (i), consortia (which may be local, regional,

or multistate consortia)—

‘‘(I) a majority of whose members are a business or represent a

business; and

‘‘(II) whose membership may include representatives of State and

local governments, community-based organizations (as defined in

section 101 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C.

2801)), educational institutions, and labor organizations (for a local

area, as defined in such section 101, in which employees are represented by labor organizations), nominated by local labor federations, or (for a local area, as so defined, in which no employees are

represented by such organizations), other representatives of employees.

‘‘(C) PRIORITY PROJECTS.—In awarding grants under subparagraph (B),

the Secretary of Labor shall give priority to programs or projects that train

employed and unemployed workers in skills that are in shortage in the high

technology, information technology, and biotechnology fields, including software and communications services, telecommunications, systems installation and integration, computers and communications hardware, health care

technology, biotechnology, and biomedical research, manufacturing, and innovation services.

‘‘(D) GRANT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS.—An application for a grant

under this paragraph shall include—

‘‘(i) specific goals for each program or project for which funds are

sought, including targets for measurable increases in skill gains for

those individuals being trained under the program or project; and

‘‘(ii) an agreement that the program or project shall be subject to

evaluations by the Secretary of Labor to measure its effectiveness.

‘‘(E) MATCHING FUNDS.—Each grantee receiving funds under this paragraph shall demonstrate the manner by which the grantee will provide

matching resources (in the form of cash, in-kind contributions, or both)

equal to at least 25 percent of the total grant amount awarded.

‘‘(F) TARGET POPULATION.—Each grantee receiving funds under this paragraph shall make efforts actively to recruit and train individuals who traditionally are underrepresented in information technology occupations, such

as minorities, women, low-wage workers, workers residing in empowerment

zones and enterprise communities (as defined in section 1393(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), and individuals with a disability.

‘‘(2) LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE, AND READING TEACH- ERS.—‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Labor shall transfer to the Secretary of Education 25 percent of

the funds made available to the Secretary of Labor under section 286(s)(2)

of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1356(s)(2)).

‘‘(B) USE OF FUNDS.—The Secretary of Education shall use funds made

available under subparagraph (A) to carry out section 3 of the Training and

Education for American Workers Act of 2000.’’.

SEC. 3. LOAN FORGIVENESS PROGRAM FOR MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE, AND READING TEACHERS.

(a) PROGRAM.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Education (in this section referred to as

the ‘‘Secretary’’) shall carry out a program of assuming the obligation to repay,

pursuant to subsection (c), a loan made, insured, or guaranteed under part B

of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 or part D of such title (excluding

loans made under sections 428B and 428C of such Act or comparable loans

made under part D of such title) for any new borrower after October 1, 1998,

who—

(A) has been employed, for 3 consecutive complete school years, as—

3

(i) a full-time teacher of mathematics, science, or a related field; or

(ii) a full-time teacher responsible for providing reading instruction

in any of grades kindergarten through 3d grade;

(B) satisfies the requirements of subsection (d); and

(C) is not in default on a loan for which the borrower seeks forgiveness.

(2) AWARD BASIS; PRIORITY.—

(A) AWARD BASIS.—Subject to subparagraph (B), loan repayment under

this section shall be on a first-come, first-serve basis and subject to the

availability of appropriations.

(B) PRIORITY.—The Secretary shall give priority in providing loan repayment under this section for a fiscal year to student borrowers who received

loan repayment under this section for the preceding fiscal year.

(3) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary is authorized to prescribe such regulations

as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this section.

(b) LOAN REPAYMENT.—

(1) ELIGIBLE AMOUNT.—The amount the Secretary may repay on behalf of any

individual under this section shall not exceed—

(A) the sum of the principal amounts outstanding (not to exceed $3,000)

of the individual’s qualifying loans at the end of 3 consecutive complete

school years of service described in subsection (a)(1)(A);

(B) an additional portion of such sum (not to exceed $1,000) at the end

of each of the next 2 consecutive complete school years of such service; and

(C) a total of not more than $5,000.

(2) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize

the refunding of any repayment of a loan made under part B or D of title IV

of the Higher Education Act of 1965.

(3) INTEREST.—If a portion of a loan is repaid by the Secretary under this section for any year, the proportionate amount of interest on such loan which accrues for such year shall be repaid by the Secretary.

(c) REPAYMENT TO ELIGIBLE LENDERS.—The Secretary shall pay to each eligible

lender or holder for each fiscal year an amount equal to the aggregate amount of

loans which are subject to repayment pursuant to this section for such year.

(d) APPLICATION FOR REPAYMENT.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Each eligible individual desiring loan repayment under this

section shall submit a complete and accurate application to the Secretary at

such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary

may require.

(2) CONDITIONS.—

(A) YEARS OF SERVICE.—An eligible individual may apply for loan repayment under this section after completing the required number of years of

qualifying employment.

(B) FULLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS IN PUBLIC ELEMENTARY OR SECONDARY

SCHOOLS.—An application for loan repayment under this section shall include such information as is necessary to demonstrate that the applicant—

(i) if teaching in a public elementary, middle, or secondary school

(other than as a teacher in a public charter school), has obtained State

certification as a teacher (including certification obtained through alternative routes to certification) or passed the State teacher licensing

exam and holds a license to teach in such State; and

(ii) if teaching in—

(I) a public elementary school, holds a bachelor’s degree and

demonstrates knowledge and teaching skills in reading, writing,

mathematics, science, and other areas of the elementary school curriculum; or

(II) a public middle or secondary school, holds a bachelor’s degree

and demonstrates a high level of competency in all subject areas

in which he or she teaches through—

(aa) a high level of performance on a rigorous State or local

academic subject areas test; or

(bb) completion of an academic major in each of the subject

areas in which he or she provides instruction.

(C) TEACHERS IN NONPROFIT PRIVATE ELEMENTARY OR SECONDARY

SCHOOLS OR CHARTER SCHOOLS.—In the case of an applicant who is teaching

in a nonprofit private elementary or secondary school, or in a charter

school, an application for loan repayment under this section shall include

such information as is necessary to demonstrate that the applicant has

knowledge and teaching skills in reading, writing, and mathematics, as certified by the chief administrative officer of the school.

4

(e) TREATMENT OF CONSOLIDATION LOANS.—A loan amount for a consolidation

loan made under section 428C of the Higher Education Act of 1965, or a Federal

Direct Consolidation Loan made under part D of title IV of such Act, may be a

qualified loan amount for the purpose of this section only to the extent that such

loan amount was used by a borrower who otherwise meets the requirements of this

section to repay—

(1) a loan made under section 428 or 428H of such Act; or

(2) a Federal Direct Stafford Loan, or a Federal Direct Unsubsidized Stafford

Loan, made under part D of title IV of such Act.

(f) FUNDS FOR PROGRAM.—The Secretary shall carry out this section with funds

made available under section 414(c)(2) of the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2916 note).

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall take effect on October 1,

2000.

PURPOSE

The purpose of H.R. 4402, the Training and Education for American Workers Act of 2000, is to improve the use of funds accumulated by the H–1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account for demonstration programs and projects to provide technical skills training for occupations for which there is a high demand for skilled

workers and for other purposes.

COMMITTEE ACTION

On May 9, 2000, Representative Bill Goodling (R–PA) introduced

H.R. 4402, the Training and Education for American Workers Act

of 2000, to amend the American Competitiveness and Workforce Investment Act (ACWIA) of 1998. This Act improves the use of funds

deposited into the H–1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account for demonstration programs and projects to provide technical skills training for occupations for which there is a high demand for skilled

workers, and for other purposes.

On May 10, 2000, the Committee on Education and the Workforce assembled to consider H.R. 4402. An amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Goodling was adopted by voice

vote, and the bill, as amended, was reported by the Committee on

Education and the Workforce by voice vote. Below is a description

of the adopted amendments to H.R. 4402:

The Goodling amendment in the nature of a substitute included

a technical modification to H.R. 4402 as introduced.

Rep. Ehlers (R–MI) introduced an amendment to allow qualified

math, science and kindergarten to third grade reading teachers,

who otherwise meet the requirements of the loan forgiveness programs established under this legislation, to receive loan forgiveness

regardless of the school in which they teach. The amendment

passed 28 yeas to 15 nays.

Rep. Ford (D–KY) introduced an amendment to enable representatives of community-based organizations, as defined under the

Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA), to serve as a member of

a business-led consortia eligible to carry out job training projects

under this legislation. The amendment was adopted by voice vote.

Rep. Tierney (D–MA) introduced an amendment to clarify that

business-led consortia receiving job-training funds under this legislation shall work in conjunction with the active support of local

workforce investment boards. The amendment was adopted by

voice vote.

5

SUMMARY

H.R. 4402 amends Section 414(c) of the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 to improve the use

of funds deposited into the H–1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account.

JOB TRAINING FUNDS

Currently under the Immigration and Nationality Act 56.3 percent of funds deposited into the H–1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account is directed to the secretary of labor for demonstration programs or projects under 414(c) of the American Competitiveness

and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998. H.R. 4402 directs 75 percent of the 56.3 percent toward demonstration programs and

projects to provide technical skills training for workers.

Under current law, eligibility for these funds is limited to private

industry councils established under the Job Training Partnership

Act of 1982, as in effect on the date of enactment of ACWIA; local

workforce investment boards established under WIA; or regional

consortia of such councils. Section 2 of H.R. 4402 drops references

to private industry councils due to the fact these councils have

since been replaced by workforce investment boards under WIA.

These new workforce investment boards and regional consortia are

eligible for these grants. In addition, the bill extends eligibility to

business-led consortia, which may also include representatives of

labor (as described under WIA), representatives of state and local

government, community based organizations (as defined under

WIA), and educational institutions.

Current law states that funds under this part are to provide

‘‘technical skills training for workers * * *’’ H.R. 4402, clarifies

that such programs or projects be limited to those addressing skill

shortages in specialty occupations (as defined in section 214(i)(1) of

the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(i)(1)). H.R.

4402 further provides priority for those projects that train employees and unemployed workers in skills that are in shortage in the

high technology, information technology, and biotechnology fields.

As the law stands today, there is no statutory requirement for

how funds under this part are to be held accountable. H.R. 4402

requires each application for a grant to include specific goals for

each program or project for which funds are sought, including targets for measurable increases in skill gains for those individuals

being trained. It also authorizes the secretary to evaluate such program to measure effectiveness.

Although no authority currently exists for the secretary of labor

to require grantees receiving job-training funds under this part to

provide matching resources, the secretary has imposed such requirement on grants awarded to date. H.R. 4402 requires each

grantee to provide matching resources (in the form of cash, in-kind

contributions, or both) equal to at least 25 percent of the total

grant amount awarded.

Under current law, there is no requirement that funds be targeted to certain populations. H.R. 4402 requires each grantee to

make an effort to recruit and train individuals who traditionally

are underrepresented in information technology occupations.

6

LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE, AND READING

TEACHERS

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act 56.3 percent of funds

deposited into the H–1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account is directed to the secretary of labor for demonstration programs or

projects under 414(c) of the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998. H.R. 4402 directs the secretary of

labor to transfer 25 percent of the 56.3 percent of funds to the secretary of education to carry out a loan forgiveness program for

mathematics, science and kindergarten through third grade reading teachers. Under current law, no funds under this part are reserved for the purpose of student loan forgiveness.

Under section 3(a) of H.R. 4402, the secretary of education, using

funds described above, is to carry out a program of assuming the

obligation to repay a loan made, insured, or guaranteed under part

B of Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 or part D of such

Title (excluding loans made under section 428B and 428C of such

act or comparable loans made under part D of such Title) for any

new borrower after October 1, 1998, who meets specific criteria.

This criteria includes a requirement that such teacher has

taught full time for three consecutive years in math, science or has

been a full-time teacher responsible for providing reading instruction to students in kindergarten through third grade for three consecutive years. Such teachers must also not be in default of a loan

for which the borrower seeks forgiveness. If teaching in a public elementary or secondary school, such teachers must be fully qualified

as defined in the statue, and if teaching in a nonprofit private elementary or secondary school or public charter school must meet alternative criteria related to subject matter knowledge and teaching

skills as established and certified by the chief administrative officer

of the school.

Under section 3(b), the amount of loans which the secretary of

education may forgive may not exceed the sum of the principal

amounts outstanding (not to exceed $3,000) of the individual’s

qualifying loans at the end of three consecutive school years. An

additional portion of such sum (not to exceed $1,000) is available

at the end of each of the following two consecutive school years for

such service not to exceed a total loan forgiveness of $5,000.

Under section 3(c), the repayment to eligible lenders is specified.

Under section 3(d), the applications and conditions of repayment

are set forth.

Under section 3(e), the treatment of consolidation loans is addressed.

Under section 3(f) language is included which clarifies that this

program is to be carried out with funds made available under section 414(c)(2) of the American Competitiveness and Workforce Investment Act of 1998.

Section 4 of this bill provides October 1, 2000 as the effective

date for this act, and the amendments made by this act.

COMMITTEE VIEWS

In October 1998, the president signed the Omnibus Consolidated

and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 (Public

Law 105–277), encompassing the American Competitiveness and

7

Workforce Improvement Act of 1998. The ACWIA amended the Immigration and Nationality Act by temporarily increasing the number of foreign-born skilled workers allowed into the United States

under H–1B visas, thus allowing them to fill job openings in certain high demand occupations. This increase was in response to

concerns from the business community, particularly the high tech

community, that there were not enough qualified professionals to

fill key jobs, raising the possibility for some companies to move to

foreign locations in order to expand.

Specifically, the ACWIA raised the cap on H–1B visas from

65,000 to 115,000 for fiscal years 1999 and 2000. For 2001, the cap

was reduced to 107,500 and then reduced again back to the original

level of 65,000 thereafter. As part of the changes made through the

ACWIA, Congress established a $500 fee upon employers for each

H–1B worker they hired. This fee generated approximately $75

million in FY2000. The act directed these fees to a H–1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account in order to fund a variety of education and job training related activities. Specifically, 56.3 percent

of these funds were directed to the secretary of labor for ‘‘demonstration programs and projects described in section 414(c) of the

ACWIA,’’ a freestanding section of that act.

With funds made available to the Department of Labor over the

past two years through this account, there has been one completed

round of competitive grants totaling $12 million, to local workforce

investment boards for a variety of training initiatives. Another

round, totaling $40 million, will be completed in late spring of

2000.

The 1999 cap on H–1B visas was reached in just six months—

demonstrating strong demand for skilled workers, especially in the

high-tech industry. This need has also been fueled by an extremely

low unemployment rate. These factors are coupled with the reality

that our education and workforce development systems are not

keeping pace with the needs of our nation’s economy. The Committee believes it is imperative that we continue to improve these

systems if we are truly to address the unmet demand for skilled

workers.

In response, there is growing support for legislation to increase

the caps on H–1B visas. It is the Committee’s intent that any efforts to do so include a continued commitment to fund effective job

training activities administered through the recently reformed

workforce system developed under the bipartisan WIA.

This commitment is reflected under H.R. 4402, the Training and

Education for American Workers Act of 2000. This legislation reinforces the view that any job training funds provided under the Immigration and Nationality Act be distributed through the Department of Labor and the local workforce system established under

WIA. In doing so, the legislation also strengthens the current job

training provisions to ensure these funds are used effectively and

increase the number of workers in the United States with the skills

necessary to be employed in the high skilled, high wage jobs which

are being filled through H–1B workers—or more often, simply not

being filled.

8

LOCAL WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARDS

The Committee believes it is important for any funds directed for

job training from the H–1B petitioner account be tied to local workforce investment boards established under WIA. These business led

boards are charged with ensuring federal job training programs are

responsive to the needs of local employers and that federally funded training provides recipients with skills that are in demand. By

July 2000, when all states must be in compliance with WIA, these

boards will have replaced private industry councils (PICs) established under the Job Training Partnership Act that was consolidated along with related programs under WIA. Unlike PICs, the

new boards will not administer or run programs—a task not suited

for a business led advisory board. Instead, the new boards will

bring together leading local business and community leaders to

provide direction and oversee these job-training programs to ensure

they are effective.

Tying these programs to the local workforce investment system

not only seeks to meet the needs of local employers, but also ensures that funds are tied into the overall workforce investment system at the local level. This new system, overseen by the local

boards, includes improved local access for services to those seeking

employment or skills upgrading and for local employers seeking job

applicants.

EXPANDED OPPORTUNITY FOR BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

Although the Committee recognizes the importance of local workforce investment boards to be actively involved in programs funded

under this part, the Committee believes it is equally important to

ensure the needs of a wide range of employers is met—including

employers not represented on local boards.

It is for this reason that H.R. 4402 enables business led consortia

to apply for these funds, in conjunction with local boards. For example, a group of technology firms, recognizing the wide demand

for skills in a particular occupation, may join together and propose

a model job training program to recruit and train individuals for

these positions. Such consortia would work with the local board in

submitting an application for funds, while allowing such consortia

to manage the project or deliver the services, as well as act as the

fiscal agent. The Committee notes the ability for such consortia to

establish programs for their existing workforce, in particular those

employees who may have the capacity, but not the specific skills to

fill job openings in occupations in demand and are otherwise being

left unfilled or being filled by H–1B visas holders.

EXPANDED TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES

H.R. 4402 encourages local workforce investment boards and consortia receiving these funds to serve individuals traditionally

underrepresented in the information technology workforce. The

Committee notes that this does not serve as a limitation on who

may be served under this program and should not be viewed as an

eligibility requirement. Additionally, it is not the intent to require

additional paperwork for local workforce investment boards and

consortia. Nor shall this be considered an exhaustive list of individuals underrepresented in these fields.

9

LOAN FORGIVENESS

As part of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998, Congress

created a loan forgiveness program for all qualified teachers. Specifically, such teachers must be new borrowers as of October 1,

1998, and teach in high poverty schools receiving Title I funds

under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act for a minimum of five years regardless of what subject they teach.

H.R. 4402 expands on the concept of loan forgiveness for teachers

and creates a new program for mathematics, science and kindergarten through third grade reading teachers regardless of where

they teach. Targeting loan forgiveness to teachers who teach these

particular subjects is in direct response to the nationwide shortage

of qualified teachers in these areas. The Committee notes that in

addition to this new program and the existing loan forgiveness program, students who receive Perkins Loans under part E of Title IV

of the Higher Education Act also receive loan forgiveness if they

teach in a school that receives Title I funds under the Elementary

and Secondary Education Act.

The combined impact of these three loan forgiveness programs

will be significant for many of our nation’s teachers. A teacher who

received the average Perkins Loan for four years of college and who

teaches any subject in a Title I school will receive $6,000 in loan

cancellation under the Perkins Loan Program over a period of five

years. If that same teacher has loans under parts B or D of Title

IV, he or she will receive $5,000 in loan forgiveness after completing five years of teaching.

By creating this new program, that same teacher will be eligible

for an additional $5,000 in loan forgiveness if he or she teaches

math, science or reading in any school in the country. This one

teacher may receive as much as $16,000 in loan forgiveness.

Not only will students in high poverty schools be served by qualified teachers, but the overall number of teachers in high need subject areas will be increased in schools nation-wide as a result of

these three loan programs.

NO SET AUTHORIZATION

It is the Committee’s intent that funding for this program come

solely from the transfer of funds from the Department of Labor.

The Committee does not intend a separate authorization of appropriations for this program.

SECTION-BY-SECTION

Section 1. Short Title. Sets forth the short title for this legislation.

Section 2. Use of H–1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Fees. Amends

Section 414(c) of the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 as follows: ‘‘Directs the secretary of labor to

establish demonstration programs or projects and provide grants

for the purpose of skills training for workers for any skill shortage

as demonstrated by the number of H–1B visas issued in a field. Additionally, this section reserves funds to be transferred to the secretary of education for the purpose of loan forgiveness for mathematics, science or reading teachers.’’

10

Section 3. Loan Forgiveness Program for Mathematics, Science,

and Reading Teachers. Directs the secretary of education to provide

loan forgiveness to qualified teachers.

Section 4. Effective Date. Provides the date in which this act

shall take effect.

EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS

The Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute is explained in the

body of this report.

APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104–1 requires a description of

the application of this bill to the legislative branch. This bill, H.R.

4402, the Training and Education for American Workers Act of

2000, is to improve the use of funds accumulated by the H–1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account for demonstration programs and

projects to provide technical skills training for occupations for

which there is a high demand for skilled workers. The bill does not

prevent legislative branch employees from receiving the benefits of

this legislation.

UNFUNDED MANDATE STATEMENT

Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, P.L. 104–4) requires a statement of whether the

provisions of the reported bill include unfunded mandates. The purpose of H.R. 4402, the Training and Education for American Workers Act of 2000, is to improve the use of funds accumulated by the

H–1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account for demonstration programs and projects to provide technical skills training for occupations for which there is a high demand for skilled workers. As such,

the bill does not contain any unfunded mandates.

ROLL CALL VOTES

Clause 3(b) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires the Committee Report to include for each record vote

on a motion to report the measure or matter and on any amendments offered to the measure or matter the total number of votes

for and against and the names of the Members voting for and

against.

11

12

13

STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF

THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause (2)(b)(1)

of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the

body of this report.

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

COST ESTIMATE

With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of

the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect to requirements of

3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives and section 402

of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for H.R. 4402 from the Director

of the Congressional Budget Office:

U.S. CONGRESS,

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE,

Washington, DC, May 18, 2000.

Hon. WILLIAM F. GOODLING,

Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House

of Representatives, Washington DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4402, the Training and

Education for American Workers Act of 2000.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased

to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Christina Hawley

Sadoti (for Department of Labor costs), and Deborah Kalcevic (for

Department of Education costs).

Sincerely,

BARRY B. ANDERSON. (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).

Enclosure.

H.R. 4402—Training and Education for American Workers Act of

2000

Summary: H.R. 4402 would amend the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 to require that a portion of the visa fees collected under current law and reserved for

the Department of Labor (DOL) would be spent by the Department

of Education (ED) on loan forgiveness activities. Although net

spending of those fees would not change over the 2001–2005 period,

variations in spending patterns by DOL and ED would result in

some year-to-year outlay differences relatives to spending under

current law. As spending under these programs is considered mandatory, these changes would be subject to pay-as-you-go procedures.

The bill also would authorize a loan forgiveness program to be

operated by ED, subject to the availability of appropriated funds.

CBO estimates that full implementation of this provision would

cost $315 million over the 2001–2005 period. CBO estimates that

$12 million of that cost would come from the transfer of fees to be

collected in 2001 under current law; all remaining costs for loan

forgiveness would require new appropriations.

14

H.R. 4402 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).

Any costs to state or local governments as a result of enactment

of the bill would be incurred voluntarily, as a condition of financial

assistance.

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 4402 is shown in the following table. The costs

of this legislation fall within budget function 500 (education, employment training, and social services).

By fiscal years, in millions of dollars—

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING

Estimated Budget Authority ..................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays .................................................................................... 0 10 ¥4 ¥4 ¥1 0

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Estimated Authorization Level .................................................................. 0 63 55 65 70 70

Estimated Outlays .................................................................................... 0 55 48 60 70 70

BASIS OF ESTIMATE

For the purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 4402

will be enacted by the end of fiscal year 2000, and that necessary

funds to implement the bill will be appropriated beginning in 2001.

DIRECT SPENDING

H.R. 4402 would amend provisions relating to job training demonstration programs authorized under the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998. Under that act, a

percentage of fees paid by petitioners for non-immigrant work visas

are used by DOL on grants for job training aimed at improving

technical skills of the American workforce. H.R. 4402 would add

new requirements to the grant programs—making them available

to business consortia as well as governmental and nonprofit providers, and requiring grantees to provide matching funds of at least

25 percent of the total grant amount awarded. CBO estimates that

these changes would have a negligible effect on federal outlays over

the 2001–2005 period.

Under the bill, DOL would keep 75 percent of the allotment provided under current law. The other 25 percent would be transferred

to ED for a loan forgiveness program (described in detail under the

following section on spending subject to appropriation). CBO estimates that, under current law, DOL will receive $48 million in fees

in fiscal year 2001 that would be used for job training activities.

If this bill is enacted, DOL would keep $36 million and transfer

$12 million to ED. Although the total amount of funds spent by the

federal government over the 2001–2005 period would not change,

there would be some change in spending patterns relative to current law.

Loan forgiveness activities are estimated as changes in credit

program subsidies that are recorded when existing loans are modified or when new loans are disbursed. Consequently, outlays would

be recorded faster for this program than for job training activities,

resulting in a net increase in spending of $10 million in fiscal year

2001, followed by net reductions in spending over the next three

15

fiscal years. The fees that are used to fund these activities are currently authorized only through 2001.

SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

The new loan forgiveness program that H.R. 4402 would establish is aimed at certain elementary and secondary school teachers.

Under the bill, qualifying teachers who were new borrowers of federal student loans after 1998 could have up to $5,000 of student

loan debt paid off by the federal government. Qualifying teachers

include full-time elementary school instructors who provide reading

instruction to students through the third grade, and other elementary and secondary school teachers who are full-time instructors in

mathematics, science, and related fields. After three consecutive

years of teaching in these fields, up to $3,000 of federal student

loan debt would be forgiven, with an additional $1,000 per year for

the fourth and fifth consecutive years.

Based on data on teachers from the National Center for Education Statistics, CBO estimates that about one-quarter of the 2.7

million elementary and secondary school teachers would eventually

meet the instructional and tenure requirements of the proposed

program, but only about 40 percent of those teachers would have

outstanding student loan debt covered under the program. Because

the program would be phased in by limiting participation to new

student loan borrowers after 1998 and only after those borrowers

have been hired and then taught for a minimum of three consecutive years, it would be many years before the program is fully implemented. By 2005, an estimated 25,000 teachers would be eligible

to receive some debt forgiveness.

Program costs associated with the new loan forgiveness program

are assessed under the requirements of the Federal Credit Reform

Act of 1990. As such, the costs associated with loan forgiveness are

recorded on a present-value basis in the year an existing loan is

modified or a new loan is disbursed to the borrower. The costs of

changes to 1999 and 2000 loans are shown in the table in 2001—

when CBO assumes appropriations would first be provided.

CBO estimates that full funding requirements of the program authorized under H.R. 4402 would be $75 million in 2001 which covers the cost of loans disbursed to borrowers in 1999, 2000, and

2001, and $335 million over the 2001–2005 period. Of the estimated $335 million in funding costs through 2005, $12 million

would be supplied through the visa fees, but the rest would be subject to annual appropriations.

H.R. 4402’s language about the source of the funding for this program creates some uncertainty about the bill’s scope. One possible

interpretation is that the program’s funding would be limited to

only the amount of visa fees transferred from DOL to ED. If that

were the case, then H.R. 4402 would create a program that would

be authorized only for 2001 (or for subsequent years, should the

Congress extend the fee authority). Because the bill does not specifically limit the program to 2001 and because it does not restrict

funding of loan forgiveness costs to just the transferred fees, however, CBO assumes—for the purposes of this estimate—that additional funding for the program would be provided through annual

appropriations to cover potential costs in addition to those covered

by the transfer of fees.

16

Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act sets up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or receipts. The net changes in

outlays that are subject to pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in

the following table. For the purposes of enforcing pay-as-you-go

procedures, only the effects in the current year, the budget year,

and the succeeding four years are counted.

By fiscal years, in millions of dollars—

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Changes in outlays .............................. 0 10 ¥4 ¥4 ¥1000000

Changes in receipts ............................. (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

1 Non-applicable.

Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal governments: H.R.

4402 contains on intergovernmental mandates as defined in

UMRA. The bill would make grants available to local workforce investment boards, or a consortia of boards, to provide programs that

train certain workers in skills that are in short supply in various

technology fields. New grant conditions would require recipients to

match at least 25 percent of the grant award. Any costs to state

or local governments as a result of enactment of the bill would be

incurred voluntarily, as a condition of financial assistance.

Estimated impact on the private sector: H.R. 4402 contains no

private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: DOL Costs—Christina

Hawley Sadoti. ED Costs—Deborah Kalcevic.

Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Susan Seig

Tompkins.

Impact on the Private Sector: Ralph Smith.

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT FINDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of

the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee has received no report of oversight findings and recommendations from

the Committee on Government Reform on the subject of H.R. 4402.

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Under clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of

Representatives, the Committee must include a statement citing

the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to

enact the law proposed by H.R. 4402. The Committee believes that

the amendments made by this bill to the American Competitiveness and Workforce Investment Act (ACWIA) of 1998 are within

Congress’ authority under Article I, section 8, clause 1 of the Constitution.

COMMITTEE ESTIMATE

Clauses 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs that would be incurred in carrying out H.R.

17

4402. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its

report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the

Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of

the Congressional Budget Act.

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill,

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic,

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

SECTION 414 OF THE AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS

AND WORKFORCE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1998

SEC. 414. COLLECTION AND USE OF H–1B NONIMMIGRANT FEES FOR

SCHOLARSHIPS FOR LOW-INCOME MATH, ENGINEERING,

AND COMPUTER SCIENCE STUDENTS AND JOB TRAINING

OF UNITED STATES WORKERS.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(c) DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS TO PROVIDE

TECHNICAL SKILLS TRAINING FOR WORKERS.— ø(1) IN GENERAL.—In establishing demonstration programs

under section 452(c) of the Job Training Partnership Act (29

U.S.C. 1732(c)), as in effect on the date of the enactment of

this Act, or demonstration programs or projects under section

171(b) of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, the Secretary

of Labor shall use funds available under section 286(s)(2) to establish demonstration programs or projects to provide technical

skills training for workers, including both employed and unemployed workers.

ø(2) GRANTS.—The Secretary of Labor shall award grants to

carry out the programs and projects described in paragraph (1)

to—

ø(A)(i) private industry councils established under section 102 of the Job Training Partnership Act (29 U.S.C.

1512), as in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act;

or

ø(ii) local boards that will carry out such programs or

projects through one-stop delivery systems established

under section 121 of the Workforce Investment Act of

1998; or

ø(B) regional consortia of councils or local boards described in subparagraph (A).¿

(c) DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL SKILLS TRAINING FOR WORKERS; LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR

MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE, AND READING TEACHERS.—

(1) TECHNICAL SKILLS TRAINING FOR WORKERS.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Labor shall use 75

percent of the funds made available under section 286(s)(2)

of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.

1356(s)(2)) to establish demonstration programs or projects

to provide technical skills training for employed and unemVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:21 May 31, 2000 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR642.XXX pfrm02 PsN: HR642
18

ployed workers for any skill shortage related to a specialty

occupation (as defined in section 214(i)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(i)(1)).

(B) GRANTS.—The Secretary of Labor shall award grants

to carry out programs or projects described in subparagraph (A) to—

(i) local workforce investment boards established

under section 117 of the Workforce Investment Act of

1998 (29 U.S.C. 2832);

(ii) regional consortia of local boards described in

clause (i); or

(iii) in conjunction with, and with the active participation of, local boards described in clause (i), consortia

(which may be local, regional, or multistate consortia)—

(I) a majority of whose members are a business

or represent a business; and

(II) whose membership may include representatives of State and local governments, communitybased organizations (as defined in section 101 of

the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C.

2801)), educational institutions, and labor organizations (for a local area, as defined in such section

101, in which employees are represented by labor

organizations), nominated by local labor federations, or (for a local area, as so defined, in which

no employees are represented by such organizations), other representatives of employees.

(C) PRIORITY PROJECTS.—In awarding grants under subparagraph (B), the Secretary of Labor shall give priority to

programs or projects that train employed and unemployed

workers in skills that are in shortage in the high technology, information technology, and biotechnology fields,

including software and communications services, telecommunications, systems installation and integration, computers and communications hardware, health care technology, biotechnology, and biomedical research, manufacturing, and innovation services.

(D) GRANT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS.—An application

for a grant under this paragraph shall include—

(i) specific goals for each program or project for

which funds are sought, including targets for measurable increases in skill gains for those individuals being

trained under the program or project; and

(ii) an agreement that the program or project shall be

subject to evaluations by the Secretary of Labor to

measure its effectiveness.

(E) MATCHING FUNDS.—Each grantee receiving funds

under this paragraph shall demonstrate the manner by

which the grantee will provide matching resources (in the

form of cash, in-kind contributions, or both) equal to at

least 25 percent of the total grant amount awarded.

(F) TARGET POPULATION.—Each grantee receiving funds

under this paragraph shall make efforts actively to recruit

and train individuals who traditionally are underrepVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:21 May 31, 2000 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR642.XXX pfrm02 PsN: HR642
19

resented in information technology occupations, such as minorities, women, low-wage workers, workers residing in empowerment zones and enterprise communities (as defined in

section 1393(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), and

individuals with a disability.

(2) LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE, AND

READING TEACHERS.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of

law, the Secretary of Labor shall transfer to the Secretary

of Education 25 percent of the funds made available to the

Secretary of Labor under section 286(s)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1356(s)(2)).

(B) USE OF FUNDS.—The Secretary of Education shall

use funds made available under subparagraph (A) to carry

out section 3 of the Training and Education for American

Workers Act of 2000.

* * * * * * *

(20)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

In response to the soaring demand by the business community

for technologically skilled workers, the Congress is once again considering legislation to increase the numbers of foreign workers that

may enter the country and fill high-tech jobs. If an increase is to

be granted, it is imperative that we also secure and build on the

job training and educational programs currently in place to increase the competitiveness of American workers.

The American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act

of 1998 (Title IV of P.L. 105–277, the Omnibus Appropriations Act

for FY 1999) was intended to strike such a balance. The Act raised

limits on H–1B visas. It imposed user fees on H–1B visa applicants. It required the fees to be used for grants awarded by the Department of Labor to fund the training of American workers for

high-technology jobs. The Act also funded scholarships through the

National Science Foundation for low-income students to pursue

degress in math, computer science, and engineering.

H.R. 4402, the Training and Education for American Workers

Act, makes modest improvements in the H–1B Technical Skills

Training Grant program administered by the Department of Labor.

It also expands the student loan forgiveness program, with a special emphasis on math, science, and reading teachers.

H.R. 4402 is a bipartisan bill that includes key provisions requested by our members. The bill creates a priority for projects

that train workers for the specific occupations that are the subject

of the majority of the H–1B applications. The bill requires grant

applicants to specify the skill gains their trainees are expected to

realize. The bill addresses the ‘‘digital divide’’ by requiring grantees

to actively recruit and train those workers who have been traditionally underrepresented in high-tech jobs—minorities, women,

the disabled, and low-income workers. It establishes a 25% non-federal matching requirement. And finally, the bill includes a loan forgiveness program for math, science, and reading teachers. While

each of the provisions in H.R. 4402 represents an important step

forward, we believe that even more could have been done to increase the overall program’s effectiveness.

First, the committee missed the opportunity to recognize labormanagement partnerships as an instrument through which innovative and effective training programs could be implemented. Many

labor organizations and employers across the nation have successfully launched initiatives to change the skill-base of the domestic

workforce. During negotiations preceding the committee’s mark-up,

we sought the inclusion of a provision expressly permitting equal

business—labor partnerships to serve as grantees. Regrettably, the

Republican majority rejected it, insisting that all grantees be business-led entities—such as local workforce investment boards, or

business-led consortia. Democrats were successful, however, in winVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:21 May 31, 2000 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR642.XXX pfrm02 PsN: HR642
21

ning approval during the mark-up of two amendments that improved the accountability for funds spent under the Act, and increased participation of employees and community organizations in

the corsortia.

The bill also included an expansion of the loan forgiveness program, a provision that was included in the bill at the request of

Representative Roemer. The provision requires the Secretary of

Labor to transfer 25% of funds collected from H–1B fees to the Secretary of Education to fund student loan forgiveness. The provsion

provides up to $3,000 in student loan forgiveness for science, math

and reading teachers who teach 3 years in elementary and secondary school, and up to $1,000 in the 4th and 5th years of teaching. It requires public school teachers to be fully qualified in order

to become eligible for loan forgiveness; the benefits are designed to

supplement the loan forgiveness provisions in the Higher Education Act.

The bill as introduced limited loan forgiveness to teachers who

teach in Title I schools. Title I schools have significantly more difficulty recruiting highly qualified teachers; this was recognized in

the bipartisan reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, which

provided up to $5,000 loan forgiveness for teachers who teach in

poor schools for 5 years. Unfortunately, the Majority weakened the

loan forgiveness provision in committee by refusing to give priority

to teachers who teach in Title I schools.

The Republican majority opposes an authorization for loan forgiveness, and wants to limit the program to H1–B fees generated

and transferred to the Department of Education. According to the

data provided by the Congressional Budget Office, this would severely limit the effectiveness and scope of this supplemental loan

forgiveness program. According to the CBO, approximately 25,000

teachers would be eligible to receive loan forgiveness under H.R.

4402 through fiscal year 2005, at a cost of $335 million. However,

the H1–B fees alone would provide only $12 million for loan forgiveness; this would fund loan forgiveness for less than 1,000

teachers cumulatively through fiscal year 2005. We suppport a separate authorization for this loan forgiveness program, so all eligible

teachers have the opportunity to receive supplemental loan forgiveness benefits under this act.

We note that another pending and bipartisan H–1B bill, H.R.

3983 (introduced by Representatives Drier and Lofgren), would

transfer the technical skills training grant program from the Department of Labor to the Department of Commerce. The members

of this committee, the Clinton Administration, and AFL–CIO all

oppose this transfer. As H.R. 4402 moves forward through the legislative process, and is considered in conjunction with related H–

1B legislation, this committee should continue to assert its jurisdiction over both the H–1B skills training grant and educational programs, and oppose their removal from the agencies that are now

effectively managing them.

We also support the amendment offered by Representative Kind

that would provide additional support for Upward Bound, a program that provides comprehensive support services to low-income

students, in critical areas such as mathematics and science. We

22

urge the Majority to make good on its promise to work with us on

this initiative.

WILLIAM L. CLAY. DALE E. KILDEE. MAJOR R. OWENS. PATSY T. MINK. TIM ROEMER. LYNN WOOLSEY. CHAKA FATTAH. CAROLYN MCCARTHY. RON KIND. HAROLD E. FORD, JR. DAVID WU. GEORGE MILLER. MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ. ROBERT E. ANDREWS. ROBERT C. SCOTT. CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO ́

JOHN F. TIERNEY. DENNIS J. KUCINICH. RUSH HOLT.

(23)

DISSENTING VIEWS OF RON PAUL

Congress should reject HR 4402, the ‘‘Training and Education for

American Workers Act of 2000,’’ as this bill uses fees from the H–

1B program to strengthen an unconstitutional attempt to centrally

plan the job training system. While the job training system certainly needs improvement, increasing the federal role in job training will not accomplish this worthy goal. Instead, Congress should

return control over job training resources to the American people

by passing large tax cuts and tax credits.

A particularly objectionable feature of this bill is its reliance on

Local Workforce Investment Boards. These boards, which were created by Congress in 1997, represent a form of corporatism that has

been discredited everywhere it has been tried. As I wrote about the

Workforce Development Boards at the time of their creation:

‘‘* * * because business-dominated workforce development

boards will determine which occupations are in demand, it is very

likely that the businesses represented on the board will be the ones

determined to be those ‘for which there is a demand in the local

workforce.’

Second, and more importantly, the very idea that a government

board can somehow determine what occupations will be in demand

at any point in the future is an example of what Nobel Laureate

F.A. Hayek called ‘The Fatal Conceit.’ No central board, even one

dominated by local officials and businessmen, can predict which

jobs will be in demand in five, ten, or even two years. It is doubtful

that a ‘‘local workforce board’’ in Silicon Valley in 1978 would have

tried to link job training services to the personal computer market.

In fact, it’s highly unlikely that Steve Jobs (founder of Apple computers), would be appointed to the workforce development board in

Silicon Valley. The very fact that the boards are comprised of already established leaders for business practically assures that the

entrepreneurs creating the jobs of the future will not be represented on this board. In this high-tech information age, where financial and, more importantly, intellectual capital, can travel

around the world in a matter of seconds, the jobs in demand in any

area can change faster than any geographical local workforce board

could conceivably update the skills with which to link job-training.’’

This bill not only reinforces the flawed system established in

1997, it once again commits ‘‘The Fatal Conceit’’ by singling out

training for certain occupations as ‘‘priority projects.’’ Congress has

neither the constitutional authority nor the competence to single

out priority occupations, instead, the determination of what occupations deserve priority should be left to the greatest job-creation and

wealth-enhancing process known in human history: the free market. Congress should promote a free-market in job training by cutting taxes on employers and employees so they may devote more

of their own resources toward training for the jobs they have deterVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:21 May 31, 2000 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR642.XXX pfrm02 PsN: HR642
24

mined are in demand. I am cosponsoring several pieces of legislation to provide tax cuts and tax credits for job training, such as HR

1824, the Skilled Workforce Enhancement Act and HR 838, which

provide tax credits for high technology training. If my colleagues

wish to use fees collected from the H–1B visa program to enhance

job training they should use this money to ‘‘offset’’ the loss of revenue from these pro-worker tax cuts.

In conclusion, Congress should reject these attempts to use H–

1B visas fees to further an unconstitutional and inefficient attempt

to centrally plan job training. Instead, Congress should embrace a

free-market approach to job training by putting education resources

in the hands of the American people so that they may determine

what are the economy’s ‘‘priority projects.’’

Æ