May 11, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E 1013

Agenda 104 process in which we examined

the various programs within our Committee’s

jurisdiction to determine their effectiveness.

Our Committee will be working to mark up this

bill throughout the month of May, and will

hopefully send a bill to the floor for consideration early this summer.

We drafted this bill starting from the position

that the current Federal Work Force Preparation System is fundamentally flawed and in

need of reform. There are simply too many

programs, too much bureaucracy, too much

duplication, and too much waste of taxpayer

money.

The CAREERS bill is drafted based on two

overarching principles: quality and local control. For many years, I have been talking to

anyone who would listen about the need to institute quality into the Federal training system.

Briefly, CAREERS focuses on providing quality training services by:

Simplifying the entire system from more

than 100 programs into just four that we believe should be the focus of Federal involvement in job training: adult employment and

training; adult education; vocational rehabilitation; and, career education and training for

youths;

Giving States and communities the maximum amount of responsibility to run their own

programs;

Because we believe that education and literacy hold the key to maintaining the longterm economic competitive position of the

United States, we require that these issues

are a key focus of the Federal work force

preparation system; and

Demanding results in the form of high

standards for improvement of local training

and education systems.

With regard to local control: let me be clear,

we are giving States and localities more power

to run Federal job training programs than they

have ever had in recent history. Governors will

have unprecedented power to coordinate all

Work Force preparation State level activities.

As a State’s highest ranking elected official, a

Governor is the key to the job training system

in every State.

It is at the local level, however, where the

most dramatic change takes place. Work force

development boards led by businesses will coordinate the entire system in communities

around the Nation. They will create one-stop

sites to ensure coordinated access to all local

work force preparation programs. They will operate programs for adult training and severely

disabled adults, as well as work with schools,

libraries, literacy providers, and others to ensure the entire training system works together

within the community.

As you can see, this is a tremendous undertaking and truly a dramatic reform in the way

the Federal Government does business in job

training. The CAREERS bill also undertakes

enormous reforms in the higher education

arena as well by eliminating SPREs (State

Postsecondary Review Entities) and privatizing

the SALLIE MAE and CONNIE LEE corporations.

Our final note. We have looked carefully at

other approaches that would completely turn

this program over to States in a modified version of ‘‘revenue sharing.’’ As I have said

many times, I do not support revenue sharing

because we have no revenue to share. What

I support is outlined in this bill: four consolidated programs, additional flexibility for States

and communities, but we must continue the

Federal role in demanding results in the form

of broad standards and goals to ensure accountability for this important investment of

taxpayer dollars.

Again, I salute the hard work of Committee

members to come up with this bill, and I look

forward to working with the Administration and

Committee Democrats to develop a bill that

truly reforms our Nation’s job training system.

INTRODUCTION OF THE ‘‘CONSOLIDATED AND REFORMED EDUfCATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND REHABILITATION SYSTEMS ACT’’

THE ‘‘CAREERS ACT’’

HON. STEVE GUNDERSON OF WISCONSIN

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, May 11, 1995

Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Speaker, at a time

when the skills levels of the American

workforce are more important than ever before

to U.S. competitiveness, this country’s programs designed to prepare its workers are seriously fragmented and duplicative. Because

education and training programs have been

developed independently over many years,

there is no national strategy for a coherent

workforce preparation and development system.

As we all know by now, the U.S. GAO has

identified 163 different Federal programs, totaling $20 billion, which offer some form of job

training and/or employment assistance to

youth and adults in the United States—yet

over the past several years we have continued

to add to this number. A major focus of any

reform effort must be to eliminate unnecessary

duplication and fragmentation in these systems, and at the same time, provide States

and localities with the flexibility needed to

build on successful existing programs and initiate change where appropriate.

Today we are introducing the Careers Act—

a multi-tiered job training reform effort that:

Streamlines workforce preparation programs

at the Federal level through consolidation of

similar programs; and provides flexibility needed by States and local areas to further reform

State and local systems—building on existing

successful programs, encouraging change

where such change is needed, and involving

the private sector at all levels in development

of the system.

This proposal builds very closely on two bills

that Committee Republicans introduced last

Congress—H.R. 2943, the National Workforce

Preparation and Development Act; and H.R.

4407, the original Careers Act. It also follows

through on legislation we introduced earlier

this year, H.R. 511, which pledged significant

reform in this area. With the Careers Act, we

are going much further with reform than anyone dreamed was possible during last Congress.

Specifically, the Careers Act consolidates

well over 100 Federal education and training

programs (as listed by the GAO) into 4 consolidation grants to States and local communities. The four consolidation grants include: A

Youth Workforce Preparation Consolidation

Grant—consolidating Vocational Education;

School-to-Work; and JTPA’s Summer Youth

Employment, Year-Round, and Youth Fair

Chance Programs with programs would be

built on a model integrating academic, vocational, and workbased learning, and enhancing

State and local employer input in the design/

development/delivery of programs; a Vocational Rehabilitation Consolidation Grant; an

Adult Training Consolidation Grant (including

programs for Disadvantaged Adults and for

Dislocated Workers); and an Adult Education

and Literacy Consolidation Grant (including all

Adult Education and Literacy programs). The

legislation will provide maximum authority to

States and localities in the design and operation of their workforce preparation system;

drive money to States—and down to local

communities to the actual points of service delivery; require the involvement of local employers in the design and implementation of local

systems—through employer-led local

Workforce Development Boards; require that

service delivery be provided through a onestop delivery structure; and we even allow the

Secretary of Labor and States to use a portion

of their funding to establish employer loan accounts for the training of incumbent workers.

Further, the legislation privatizes 2 existing

government sponsored enterprises, Sallie Mae

and Connie Lee—in the spirit of reduced Federal control for programs that no longer need

Government support.

There is no doubt that future U.S. competitiveness is dependent on the skill levels of our

workers. In addition to global competition,

technological advances and corporate

realignments highlight the need to focus on

worker preparation. The future of U.S. competitiveness really rests on what I describe as

a ‘‘3-legged stool.’’ We have already accomplished the construction of the 1st leg—tearing

down barriers to trade through the enactment

of NAFTA and GATT. We are currently working on the 2d leg—providing tax and other incentives for modernization of the workplace.

Finally, the 3d leg, and probably the most difficult to strengthen and uphold, but one that is

imperative to succeed, is that of investing in

and strengthening the education and training

of our citizenry.

I think that the Careers Act accomplishes

the building and strengthening of this ‘‘3d leg’’.

It focuses on the workforce preparation and literacy needs of youth, adults, and individuals

with disabilities. I hope that we will succeed in

seeing its enactment this year.

FRANKING REDUCTION ACT OF 1995

fHON. BOB GOODLATTE OF VIRGINIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, May 11, 1995

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today

to reintroduce the Franking Reduction Act of

1995, legislation that is necessary if we are to

truly reform this House. The bloated franking

budget has become nothing more than a blatantly abused political advertising slush fund,

and it has got to stop. My bill, which has received bipartisan support, would slash the $31

million franking budget in half.

The past 100 days have seen the passage

of several substantial in-House reforms, proving to the American people our commitment to

real change. The American people are getting

the message that real change is finally happening here in Washington, which is precisely
E 1014 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks May 11, 1995

why we can’t stop now. We need to continue

to pass legislation consistent with our promise

of reform to the American people.

To keep the spirit of reform moving, I urge

my colleagues to join me in some spring

House cleaning. The frank has grown from a

tool to inform and educate constituents about

legislative issues into a campaign advertisement to promote personal and political agendas. We need to restore credibility to the

franking process by making Members accountable for the costs they incur.

Not only will my bill cut franking by 50 percent, but it also requires monthly statements

of costs charged to each Member’s account to

be made available to the public. This bill will

apply to sessions of Congress beginning after

the date of enactment.

The bloated franking budget can be cut

without damaging the ability of Members to

communicate with their constituents. In the

103rd Congress, I used less than 50 percent

of my franking budget, without impairing my

ability to effectively correspond with my constituents. It is a common misnomer that a reduction in franking affects a Member’s performance. Rather, it forces Members to use

their mail budget solely to inform and educate.

Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree that

bringing an end to franking abuse is long overdue. Cutting the franking budget by 50 percent

will restore the original intent of the frank while

following through with our promise of continued congressional reform. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

TRIBUTE TO LEONARD H.

fMACKAIN

HON. JAY KIM

OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, May 11, 1995

Mr. KIM. Mr. Speaker, I rise before the

House floor today to recognize a major civic

leader in the 41st District who has recently retired from many years of public service. The

City of Brea has greatly benefitted from the

contributions of Mr. Leonard H. MacKain who

has been a leader in our community for many

years.

Mr. MacKain has previously served on the

Brea City Council from 1972 to 1976 with two

consecutive terms as mayor from 1974 to

1976. During this period, he played an integral

part in the building of the Brea Civic Center

and Library and forming redevelopment areas

which allowed for the construction of the Brea

Mall.

In his career in education, Mr. MacKain has

held the positions of superintendent, assistant

superintendent, teacher principal, project manager and Board Educator member. His commitment and enthusiasm in this area has led

to the construction and expansion of five

schools in Brea and has created strong bonds

between the city and the school district.

I also want to mention that Mr. MacKain has

also served on the Harbors, Beaches and

Parks Commission in 1976 and held this position for the next 15 years.

As the U.S. Congressman for the 41st District, I salute Mr. MacKain for his outstanding

achievements and dedication as a public servant. Washington is beginning to delegate its

power to the State and local level. This requires able leaders to use excellent judgment

with this new responsibility. Mr. Speaker, I believe that Mr. MacKain is a fine example of a

decision maker at the local level who has put

in the effort to successfully transform a community by understanding and recognizing how

to utilize existing resources given to it. America needs more people like him.

HOME FOR GUIDING HANDS

fHON. DUNCAN HUNTER OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, May 11, 1995

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, mentally and

physically disabled people are being helped by

computers in two homes for the disabled because of techniques developed by Lloyd

Hartvigsen. He credits part of the success for

the lab he established at the Home for Guiding Hands at Lakeside, CA, to Lorraine Barrack, now 36 years of age, who has had cerebral palsy since birth.

‘‘It just made sense that people who can’t

speak might find their voice with the aid of a

computer,’’ said Mr. Hartvigsen, a retired printer who established a 10-terminal lab for residents of the Home for Guiding Hands. The

mother of Lorraine Barrack, Mrs. Elaine Barrack, said ‘‘It’s the first time my daughter has

been able to write us a note that says ‘I love

you.’ This was the first year she’s been able

to send out Christmas cards. You just can’t

know how precious these notes and letters are

to me.’’

Mr. Hartvigsen, working with Lorraine’s family, decided that the wand and touch screen

would be perfect, since she had control of her

head movements. ‘‘With a touch screen, everything you do with a keyboard can be done

just by touching the screen,’’ he explained.

‘‘To use the computer, Lorraine puts on a cap

with a foot-long wand attached. By leaning forward and tapping the wand on certain parts of

the computer screen, she can write a note or

play a game.’’

Lorraine and 14 classmates at the Home for

Guiding Hands use the computer system to do

schoolwork, to paint and draw, and also to

learn to type and send letters to relatives and

friends. Mr. Hartvigsen is also employed parttime as a computer instructor at St. Madeleine

Sophie’s Center for the Handicapped in El

Cajon, CA. He began volunteer work at the

Home for Guiding Hands in 1988, but it was

in the past 4 years that he realized how helpful computers could be as communication

tools for the developmentally handicapped.

Originally a volunteer at the Home for Guiding

Hands, he was hired several months ago by

the Home to operate the computer lab that he

had set up. He now instructs residents of the

Home in the use of computers, as well as residents of the St. Madeleine Sophie’s Center.

Mr. Hartvigsen is the son of Austin

Hartvigsen of Santee and the late Mrs. Austin

Hartvigsen, both of whom were volunteers for

several years at the naturalization ceremonies

in San Diego. They welcomed the new citizens, answered any questions they might

have, and helped them register to vote. The

family is an outstanding example of the best in

volunteerism in America.

WHY AMERICA NEEDS A DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

HON. G.V. (SONNY) MONTGOMERY OF MISSISSIPPI

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, May 11, 1995

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I am

pleased to share with my colleagues a letter

written by the Honorable Jesse Brown, Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs,

to Mr. Stuart Butler, Vice President of The

Heritage Foundation. The letter is in response

to The Heritage Foundation’s proposal to

eliminate the Department of Veterans Affairs

and establish it as a bureau within the Department of Defense.

I believe Secretary Brown’s remarks point

out how important it is to maintain the Department of Veterans Affairs. In the wake of all the

‘‘myths’’ being printed in the media about the

Department’s facilities and the services it provides, the facts laid out in Secretary Brown’s

letter make for very compelling reading.

THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Washington, May 10, 1995.

Mr. STUART BUTLER,

Vice President, The Heritage Foundation, Massachusetts Avenue NE., Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. BUTLER: I was rather perplexed

when I read your proposal to eliminate the

Department of Veterans Affairs and establish it as a bureau in the Department of Defense. Likewise, I was mystified by some of

the specific program recommendations in

your report on ‘‘Rolling Back Government.’’

About the only statement that I agree with

is, ‘‘The care of Americans who have served

their country in the armed forces is a core

function of the federal government.’’ At

least you are right in that regard.

CABINET STATUS

VA was elevated to Cabinet status in 1989

after years of congressional deliberation.

President Reagan agreed with Congress that

the agency charged with administering benefits and services to our veterans and their

dependents (who now number 26 million and

44 million, respectively) belongs at the Cabinet table when issues are being formulated

and acted upon. President Reagan was right.

Your report portrays VA as an inefficient bureaucracy while offering no evidence in support of such a statement. I am curious how

you arrive at the conclusion that the existing structure for providing veterans benefits

and services would become more efficient

with another layer over it, that of the Office

of the Secretary of Defense, and possibly

others. Further, if VA were to be made a bureau within DoD, the Nation’s obligations to

our veterans would constantly be at risk of

being subordinated to National defense and

security needs, particularly in time of conflict or great danger. The lack of wisdom of

placing veterans programs in such a precarious position has been obvious to Congress

and Presidents for many decades. How could

you possibly fail to realize—or even address—the fact that a separate VA assures

that veterans’ needs are addressed on their

own merits and not based on whether our Nation needs to spend more or less on defense?

DISABILITY COMPENSATION

Turning to the proposals you make for specific VA programs, I found it extremely ironic that, in the name of ‘‘allowing veterans to

enjoy the benefits of privately provided . . .

retirement services’’ and modernizing the

VA disability compensation program, you

simply propose taking away compensation

from certain veterans. One group who would