Page images


I am Jerelyn B. Schultz, Vice President for Home Economics Education of the American Vocational Association. I appreciate this opportunity to offer written testimony on behalf of vocational home economics education. I will speak to the need for restoration of the $38.5 for Consumer and Homemaking Education, Title III-B, Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Act, P. L. 101-392.

If federal funds are to be used to help build a strong, competitive work force for America's future, then Consumer and Homemaking programs must be funded. Today, half of our population lives in urban areas and both parents work. Parents often do not have the time or the resources to teach their children about sound nutrition, individual and family health, parenting, and consumer education. At the same time, dropout rates, teenage pregnancy, and child abuse and neglect have reached epidemic proportions in this country. These problems weigh heavily on public budgets and will become heavier if we do not help young people stay in school, learn to prevent pregnancy, and become responsible and self-sufficient.

Consumer and homemaking educators across the country are experts in dealing with these kinds of problems. Federal dollars have helped us develop and staff outstanding programs that assist teenagers in staying in school and learning an occupation to support themselves. Consumer and homemaker educators are teaching vital skills to more than four million students (40% of whom are male) in our secondary and post-secondary programs. Over 45,000 teachers are employed in our programs, and we effectively serve large numbers of students from special populations.

Two programs funded with consumer and homemaking dollars have been so successful that they have been used as models and have been disseminated nationally.


The Work and Family Institute program began in
Minnesota. It was designed to provide parenting,
stress management, and family management skills to
workers at the work site. Work site seminars assist
employees in balancing work and family responsibili-
ties. These seminars are offered through a business
and industry and education partnership. The Minnesota
program has been adopted in 20 other states including
Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi,
Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Virginia,
Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. A single
program in Mississippi enrolled 3,100 adults in classes

for 320 hours.



Another nationally disseminated program is GRADS, a school-based program developed in Ohio to keep pregnant and parenting teens in school. This program has been selected for inclusion in the national diffusion network because of its effectiveness. Over 85% of the 8,250 students enrolled in the program in Ohio in FY 90 graduated or reentered school last September. The retention rate for this audience nationally is 40%. These results are even more impressive when one considers the social and economic costs of adolescent pregnancy. In 1985 alone, the United States spent over $16 billion on families that were begun when the mother was a teenager. Connecticut and New Mexico have adopted the GRADS Program, Iowa and Pennsylvania have scheduled training sessions, and other states are in the awareness conference stage.

States have used federal dollars to provide leadership to consumer and homemaking education program. Michigan has focused its money on program improvement through an organized state-wide process to meet student needs. As a part of this process, they surveyed school administrators, parents, and students regarding the value of consumer and homemaking education. Almost 90% of the administrators indicated that all students benefit from these programs and 70% of parents indicated that the daily living skills provided were very important to young people. studies have provided evidence of the importance of consumer and homemaking programs to students. A 1989-90 follow-up study in North Carolina found that 40% of teenagers said the main reason they stayed in school was their home economics program.


Consumer and homemaking education is the only federally funded curriculum for youth and adults that focuses on developing the knowledge and skills for the work of the family. Work attitudes and values are formed in the home; worker productivity is strongly influenced by family stability that promotes the development of family members. Congress, in funding Consumer and Homemaking Education since the Smith Hughes Act of 1917, has recognized the relationship between a quality home and family life and a productive and satisfying work life. Consumer and homemaking programs help strengthen families and prevent problems related to family instability, child abuse, sexual abuse, inadequate nutrition, and resource management. These programs prepare youth and adults for both the work and family spheres of life and focus on the interrelationships between the two.

In order for consumer and homemaking to continue its important work of educating and assisting America's families and underserved populations, I encourage you to appropriate the $38.5 million authorized under Title III-B, Carl D. Perkins Vocational Applied Technology Act, P. L. 101-392. Thank you for your consideration of this request.


Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcomittee in support of a program that is vital to our nation; impact aid.


During these times of severe fiscal constraints, we must exercise the highest degree of prudence when making budgetary decisions. a result, it is critical that Congress identify the programs that are of the highest priority to the nation. Mr. Chairman, I believe that impact aid is a high priority program that deserves full funding.

The impact aid program deserves special attention because it is designed to ensure that a federal presence in a community does not interefere with the education of the young people of that community. P.L. 81-874 was enacted in 1950, and subsequently reauthorized in 1988 (P.L. 100-297) to ensure that the federal government reimburses school districts for revenues lost as a result of federal activities or acquisition of land. If Congress funded impact aid at its full authorization level, school districts throughout the nation would be entitled to a total of $885 million. However, the Administration has requested $620.1 million, which is a $160.6 million reduction from last year's appropriation.

This year, the Administration proposed no funding for "b" students. In Colorado, this would translate into a loss of $2.8 million. The skepticism surrounding the funding of "category b" is based on the claim that only some of the revenue sources for public education are affected. However, the law recognizes the difference in impact between "a" and "b" students by granting "b" students an entitlement of .25 cents for every $1.00 received by "a" students. Thus, the differences in impact are contemplated by the law. In addition, even though all six revenue sources may not be disrupted by "b" students, the financial structure supporting schools is thrown off balance, which results in the reduction of educational services to all children.

Another section of the impact aid program that deserves special attention is Section 2. As you know, Mr. Chairman, school districts are most severely burdened by the removal of land from their tax roles. For this reason, P.L. 81-874 provides that Section 2 be funded at 100% entitlement before any funds are allocated for Section 3 payments. However, the mandate of the law has not been followed over the past few years. In fact, since 1988, Section 2 payments have been made at only approximately 60-70% of entitlement.

For example, Adams County School District 14 in Colorado received only 45% of their 1989 entitlement. At 100% entitlement, Adams County 14 would have received $1.85 million. Their actual receipt was $843,687. How can we expect Adams County to meet the educational needs of the community with a loss of over $1 million? The impact aid program represents Congress' responsibility to ensure that localities with a significant federal presence are not unfairly burdened, and that federally-connected children receive the educational opportunities to which they are entitled. Congress must fulfill its obligation to uphold the spirit and letter of P.L. 81-874 by funding Sections 2 and 3 at their full authorization levels. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.



We certainly appreciate the opportunity to express the views of the nation's independent retail pharmacists to the subcommittee today. I will ask that my prepared text and accompanying supportive documents be entered into the Record of today's hearing.

My comments today are designed to complement the prepared testimony. I will touch on the Medicaid Antidiscriminatory

Price and Patient Benefit Restoration Act (MADPA); Medicare;
and, our suggestion that an HHS Practicing Pharmacists Advisory
Council be established.

The author of MADPA and so many other proconsumer, pro-small business measures, Senator David Pryor, is in my thoughts this morning. Since his heart attack two days ago in the early morning hours of April 16, our prayers have been for him and his family. MADPA was indeed, as the national media has cast it a David vs. Goliath. David, of course, is our friend David Pryor. As a consequence of his singlemindedness; skill as a legislator; the high regard for him in this body; and, the support of the nation's consumers, MADPA is law.

Denying the best price for drugs to the outpatient poverty program for the past 25 years made a mockery of common sense. David Pryor has, with his bipartisan support, and in spite of the vicious, often racist, campaign against him, corrected this injustice. We commend him and the many members of the subcommittee that have long supported equal access to fair prices and economic justice for independent pharmacists and many indigent persons in the Medicaid program.

As a long time member of the Board of the Small Business

Legislative Council (SBLC), I was especially pleased that David Pryor received the 1990 SBLC Small Business Advocate Award.

On May 15, 1990, your colleague, Senator Tom Daschle, brought this recognition of Senator Pryor to your attention through the following statement on the Senate floor:

Mr. President, I noted with interest in the May
1990 edition of the National Association of Retail
Druggists (NARD) Journal that Senator David Pryor, my
good friend and colleague on the Finance and
Agriculture Committees, was presented the Small
Business Advocate Award for his commitment to small
business by the Small Business Legislative Council

The SBLC, which has 103 association members serving over 4 million small enterprises, represents small business on a variety of issues in Washington, and its recognition of Senator Pryor's commitment to ensuring that the concerns of American small business are represented in the legislative process is significant. I can think of no one more deserving of the Small Business Advocate Award than Senator Pryor and I ask that the attached article from the NARD Journal be printed in the Congressional Record.

The article follows:

Senator David Pryor, Small Business Advocate
Small Business Support

Pryor has undertaken numerous activities on behalf of small business. Pryor is the chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, which is currently holding hearings on multitier pricing practices in the pharmaceutical industry and serves on several other Senate committees, including Agriculture, Finance and Government Affairs. He is also a member of the Pepper

« PreviousContinue »