To amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to provide increased flexibility for the transfer of within state allocations between adult and disclocated worker employment and training activities.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education, Training and Life-Long Learning.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Aug 2, 1999
Amends the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to revise within-State allocation requirements to allow a local board that represents a local area with an unemployment rate of ten percent or more to transfer up to 35 percent (currently, 20 percent) of specified funds between adult employment and training activities and dislocated worker employment and training activities. (Retains the 20 percent limitation on such transfers for local boards representing local areas with unemployment rates of less than ten percent.)
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jul 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.2675 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.2675 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.2675 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.2675 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.