[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 80 (Wednesday, June 22, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 22, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
       REFORMING AND CONSOLIDATING FEDERAL JOB TRAINING PROGRAMS

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining Senator 
Kassebaum this morning in launching a bipartisan effort to reform and 
consolidate Federal job training programs.
  In his State of the Union Address, President Clinton called on 
Congress to take immediate actions to bring some coherence to work 
force development policy. In this session of the Congress we have 
responded by enacting important new education and job training measures 
for young people such as the School-to-Work Opportunities Act and the 
Goals 2000: Educate America Act.
  It is now time for us to press ahead and take up the rest of the 
President's challenge: To reform and streamline job training programs 
for adults. In his State of the Union Address the President noted that: 
``We simply must streamline today's patchwork of training programs and 
must make them a source of skills for people who lose their jobs''.
  Senator Kassebaum and I, and many other Senators from both sides of 
the aisle, take President Clinton's challenge seriously and intend to 
jointly introduce legislation this summer to reform and streamline job 
training programs for adults.
  Many of the building blocks of our current job training system were 
established during the New Deal, New Frontier, and Great Society years. 
Our challenge then was to devise ways to help various hard-to-serve 
groups to enter the labor force. Most of those programs were 
appropriate at the time, and many have been effective.
  Now, as a result of increased international competition, 
unprecedented technological changes, and defense downsizing, many 
additional workers now need to be retrained or have their skills 
upgraded. Population changes and the increasing number two income 
families have created a need to assist millions of additional workers 
to enter the labor force. Our goal is to update and improve Federal job 
training programs in a systematic way to respond to the changes taking 
place in our economy.
  We must do more to ensure that job training programs for adults are 
streamlined and improved to give workers and businesses the skills 
needed to successfully compete in the 21st century.
  There is good reason to be optimistic that we can succeed. Over the 
past several years, a bipartisan consensus has emerged to streamline 
and reform Federal job training programs. The landmark ``America's 
choice: High Skills or Low Wages'' report issued in 1990 by the 
Bipartisan Commission on the Skills of the American Work Force played 
an important role in helping to frame the debate. The report found 
that, compared to our major international competitors, the United 
States does not take a systematic approach to preparing noncollege 
bound workers for product careers.
  Shortly after the release of the report, I asked the General 
Accounting Office to identify and analyze the many employment and 
training programs of the Federal Government. GAO identified 125 
different programs with a total funding of $16.4 billion in 1991. As 
GAO noted, many of the programs provide similar services to the same 
target population, and crate overlapping services and confusion on the 
part of localities and individuals seeking assistance.
  In recent years, several members of Congress, including Senators 
Kassebaum, Simon, Hatfield, and Harkin and Representatives William 
Ford, Collin Peterson, and William Zeliff requested additional 
information from GAO. Three major additional findings resulted from 
these followup studies.


 the size and scope of the federal investment in job training programs 
                   are larger than previously thought

  GAO identified 154 different employment and training programs and 
funding streams with $24.8 billion in requested funding for fiscal year 
1994. Responsibility for administering these programs is spread across 
14 departments and independent agencies. While some observers question 
the specific programs included in the GAO count, virtually all of those 
familiar with Federal job training policy agree with GAO's overall 
point--too much, duplication and too many inefficiencies exist in these 
separate programs.


it is difficult for administrators to carry out these programs and for 
                   consumers to obtain their benefits

  Most of these programs, which were established over a period of 
decades, continue to operate under independent centers of control and 
authority. Many use separate delivery systems. The result is that the 
current programs confuse and frustrate everyone involved and impose 
unnecessary costs.
  GAO discovered many specific examples of separate requirements that 
turn efforts to coordinate the delivery of services into a bureaucratic 
nightmare for program administrators. For example, many programs target 
the same populations, but conflicting eligibility requirements and 
operating cycles make coordination impossible.


     it is difficult to measure what the programs are accomplishing

  Perhaps the most alarming GAO finding is that many Federal agencies 
do not know whether their programs are working. At the request of 
Senator Kassebaum, GAO assessed 62 programs that provide job training 
assistance to the economically disadvantaged. GAO found that although 
most Federal agencies monitor the expenditure of funds, they generally 
do not collect information on outcomes. Ninety percent of the programs 
collected data on dollars spent and participants served, but only 49 
percent knew whether the participants got jobs, and only 26 percent 
knew the wage level of the jobs.
  In light of the importance of training to our Nation's work force, 
the lack of focus on accountability is unacceptable, especially at this 
time of increasingly tight Federal budgets and scarce resources for new 
investments.
  Last March, two significant bills with important implications for 
reform and consolidation of Federal job training were introduced by 
members of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee.
  The first of these bills, S. 1943, the Job Training Consolidation Act 
of 1994, was introduced by Senator Kassebaum. Her bill would set in 
motion a process for consolidating more than 60 separate programs 
authorized in 12 different statutes. Their authorizations would sunset 
29 months after the bill's enactment. A new seven member commission 
would be established and given 2 years to develop a sweeping 
consolidation and reorganization plan. During that period, States would 
be given broad waiver authority to experiment with new approaches to 
consolidate and reform job training programs.
  The second bill, S. 1964, is President Clinton's Reemployment and 
Retraining Act. Senator Metzenbaum is the primary sponsor of this bill, 
several of us on the committee are cosponsors. This bill would 
consolidate six training programs for dislocated workers, provide 
income support for them to participate in long-term training, improve 
the labor market information available to them, and let States begin to 
consolidate programs through new ``one-stop career centers.''
  In the past month, Senator Kassebaum and I have worked together to 
achieve a common approach that we both feel deserves bipartisan support 
and that can accomplish the goals we share with the administration. We 
intend to develop a bipartisan bill to reform and consolidate Federal 
job training programs on this basis.
  We also are sending a survey to the three agencies that collectively 
administer 110 of the 154 programs identified by GAO--the Department of 
Labor, Department of Education, and the Department of Health and Human 
Services. The purpose of this survey is to obtain baseline information 
to determine which programs should be included in our reform and 
consolidation effort. We will hold hearings to review these survey 
results and to review recommendations.
  The need for a high performance work force development system has 
never been greater. I am confident that there will be broad bipartisan 
support for developing a better system to achieve it, and I look 
forward to early action by Congress to implement this approach.
  Finally, Mr. President, what we are trying to do in our committee is 
to do an evaluation of the range of different programs that we have 
authorized and for which funding is appropriated to actually find out 
what percentage of that funding actually gets out into the field in 
terms of the administrative costs as well as the effectiveness of the 
program.
  That is an ongoing and continuing commitment that we have made and on 
which we will continue to give reports to the Senate as a whole as to 
the progress that we are making. Obviously, there is a great deal of 
pressure in terms of responding to the immediate kinds of legislative 
challenges as we are facing a limited period of time before we recess 
for this session. But this is going to be an ongoing and continuing 
commitment of the committee. We have been able to gather broad 
bipartisan support.
  I commend Senator Kassebaum and others on the committee, Republican 
and Democrat alike, who are working closely together. Many of these 
programs are not only in our Labor Committee but are administered by 
the Labor Department. Some of them are in the Agriculture Department, 
Commerce Department, and many other areas where there is cross-
jurisdictional kinds of issues.
  We attempt to work with our colleagues, and those in the Finance 
Committee as well, to attempt to try initially to consolidate and 
coordinate all of those programs in our committee and to begin the 
whole process of gathering many of the related types of programs in 
other agencies to see if we cannot make the programs: first, more 
effective and efficient; second, get a greater kind of accountability 
for the American taxpayer in terms of what is really happening in this 
program; and, third, give greater information to those people who are 
being impacted so that they know what kinds of skills in training and 
education programs are being enhanced; and fourth and finally, the 
employer will know how effective these programs are going to be as 
well.
  So this is a continuing challenge for all of us. It is going to take 
some time. But I think we are making good progress. And we are going to 
continue to do it in these training programs and education programs, 
and in all the different areas of responsibility that we have in our 
committee.
  I notice Senator Kassebaum on the floor. I again thank her.
  Mr. President, I ask the Chair at the conclusion of the morning hour 
this morning to bring together the related comments and speeches on 
this subject matter so that there will be a sense of continuity in 
terms of documents.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas.


                      Federal Job Training Program

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my 
colleague, the Senator from Massachusetts, and of course the chairman 
of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, to announce our shared 
interest in revamping the current Federal job training system.
  Senator Kennedy has already addressed some aspects of that proposal. 
And, if I may, I would like to reinforce my interest in these efforts.
  I am pleased that there is growing bipartisan sentiment in Congress 
that the current system is badly in need of repair. According to the 
GAO, the Federal Government currently oversees 154 job training 
programs, administered by 14 different agencies, at a total cost to the 
taxpayers of almost $25 billion per year.
  Mr. President, my concern--and I think the same concern as expressed 
by the Senator from Massachusetts--is that the right hand and the left 
hand just do not know what they are doing. They do not know what works 
and what does not work. In fact, the Senator from Massachusetts 
deserves credit for starting the ball rolling by asking the GAO in 1991 
to identify and evaluate all the different programs involving 
employment and training.
  The results of that initial study laid the groundwork for many of the 
current proposals to consolidate and eliminate duplicative job training 
programs. We simply cannot keep pumping Federal dollars into this 
confusing maze of programs. I do not think it is fair to those who want 
to find successful job training and retraining efforts. I do not think 
it is fair to the taxpayers to continue to support initiatives which we 
are not really sure are working as we would hope. To be honest, people 
are fed up across the country that we are spending money on Government 
programs that make big promises and then do not deliver.
  We need to start over and create a job training system that works for 
everyone, whether you are a person just entering the work force, or a 
worker with advanced skills who seeks to enter into a new type of job. 
We do not have that kind of system today, and our workers and our 
economy both pay the price.
  The task will not be easy. Last March, I introduced a bipartisan bill 
designed to overhaul completely the job training system by essentially 
wiping the slate clean and starting over. The bill takes two important 
steps toward achieving comprehensive reform.
  First, the bill would grant broad waivers immediately to allow States 
and localities maximum flexibility to coordinate the largest programs 
at the local level.
  Second, the bill establishes a national commission to make 
recommendations on consolidating all existing programs. At the end of 2 
years, the largest job training programs would sunset unless Congress 
acts on the recommendations of the commission or reinstates existing 
law.
  I firmly believe that the starting point of any discussion about job 
training must be how to overhaul completely the current system and 
create a new one that works--nothing less. Otherwise, we are just 
continuing to rebuild on an old structure, again not being able to 
evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of any particular program.
  This is one of the main reasons why I have not supported the 
administration's Re-Employment Act. The Re-Employment Act attempts to 
combine only a fraction of the existing job training programs for 
dislocated workers. I do not believe that the Re-Employment Act goes 
far enough to confront the critical need for comprehensive reform, and 
may, in fact, delay real progress on consolidating and eliminating 
duplicative or ineffective programs.
  In addition, I am very concerned about the additional costs of the 
REA, which provides long-term income support and many other benefits 
for individuals enrolled in retraining programs. The administration 
estimates that the bill would increase current costs by $13 billion 
over 5 years.
  To pay for this new program, the administration proposes to make 
permanent a 0.2 FUTA percent tax imposed on employers. I have strong 
reservations about setting up a financing structure that could 
potentially develop into a new open-ended entitlement program.
  In order for a consolidation effort to be successful, it must have 
broad bipartisan support.
  I am pleased that Senator Kennedy, who has had a longstanding 
interest in this area of public policy, is committed to working toward 
wholesale reform. While there is no consensus yet on how best to 
achieve comprehensive reform, Senator Kennedy and I--and we have been 
joined by the Senator from Nebraska, Senator Kerrey, who is a cosponsor 
of the Job Training Consolidation Act, which I believe is a good point 
of reference, all have some concerns about how best to consolidate and 
reform Federal job training programs. I believe these concerns reflect 
a desire for real change in this area, which many of us feel--and it 
seems to me, Mr. President, provides a good opportunity to seize the 
initiative and really be willing to boldly take some dramatic steps 
toward reform.
  The joint statement for consolidating and reforming Federal job 
training programs, which Senator Kennedy and I have articulated, 
incorporates the following five basic concepts about a comprehensive 
job training system. I think the Senator from Massachusetts referenced 
these, but I would reiterate the following:
  First, it should be based on the needs of jobseekers and employers 
alike.
  Second, it should be readily accessible and understandable to all 
participants and easy to use.
  Third, it should focus on performance and accountability.
  Fourth, it should provide flexibility and primary responsibility to 
the States and, in turn, to local communities, for design and 
implementation of job training systems.
  Fifth, it should be based on local labor market needs which, by 
necessity, require the active involvement of the private sector.
  I ask unanimous consent that a full copy of the joint statement on 
consolidation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Joint Kennedy/Kassebaum Statement: Consolidating and Reforming Federal 
                         Job Training Programs

       We believe that immediate action needs to be taken to 
     transform federally-funded job training efforts from a 
     collection of free-standing, categorical programs into a 
     coherent, integrated, accountable work force development 
     system.
       The system should be based on the needs of job-seekers and 
     employers alike. Too much activity that takes place within 
     federally-funded job training programs is based on the 
     institutional imperatives of the bureaucracy, rather than 
     serving the needs of job-seekers, workers and employers. We 
     need to create a system that assists individuals to enter the 
     work force, increases their basic skills, improves their 
     technical skills, or retrains them for new jobs according to 
     the needs and demands of employers. We recognize that various 
     hard-to-serve groups may require more assistance than others 
     to succeed in this new system.
       The system should be readily accessible to any worker, job 
     seeker, or employer. The system should be understandable to 
     all participants and easy to use. Every individual or 
     business who approaches the system should have information 
     about the full array of services available, and should be 
     able to easily gain entry into the system. The system should 
     assure that job-seekers will receive information, guidance 
     and counseling about all available employment and training 
     services--no matter where they first enter the system.
       This system should focus on performance. Performance should 
     be defined by the value added that is achieved (such as long-
     term job placement) rather than by the number of individuals 
     served. Accurate and up-to-date information on the 
     performance of all programs should be available to all.
       The system should provide flexibility and responsibility to 
     the states, and in turn to local communities, for design and 
     implementation of job training systems. States are well-
     positioned to integrate federally funded job training 
     programs with state education and economic development 
     strategies, and to provide incentives and monitor the 
     performance of local programs. Local officials should, 
     wherever practicable, be given the authority to allocate 
     resources based on the needs of job-seekers and employers 
     alike, and the supply, demand, price and quality of job 
     training services in their areas. The appropriate role for 
     the federal government in the job training system is to 
     provide overall policy direction, and articulate the 
     authority and role for each level of government in the new 
     system, provide resources to help execute these policies and 
     establish this system, oversee system-wide performance, and 
     disseminate best practices.
       The system should be based on local labor market needs 
     which, by necessity, require the active involvement of the 
     private sector. Private sector businesses, which ultimately 
     provide the jobs, must be included as an integral part of the 
     system at every level. Too often training programs are not 
     connected to available employment opportunities. The system 
     should require the involvement of employers in the choice, 
     design and content of the types of skills and training needed 
     in each local area in order to link training to employment 
     opportunities.

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. While I believe the legislation that the Senator from 
Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey], myself, and others, have introduced the Job 
Training Consolidation Act of 1994, incorporates these basic concepts, 
I recognize that others may have different ideas about how to reach the 
same goal. I welcome the suggestions and the recommendations of all who 
are interested in reforming our scattershot array of job training 
programs into a system that will serve all individuals more 
effectively.
  In order to gain the most information available, Senator Kennedy and 
I have agreed to take several concrete steps. We are requesting the 
three Federal agencies that are responsible for the bulk of our job 
training programs--the Departments of Labor, Education, and Health and 
Human Services--to provide us with the most current information 
regarding the performance of their programs. Such information will be 
necessary in order to make sensible determinations about the 
elimination or consolidation of specific programs.
  Additionally, we are interested in the experiences of States, 
localities, and private sector initiatives for integrating employment 
and training programs. We are therefore requesting information from 
knowledgeable individuals and entities that will be useful in 
formulating a policy that reflects our joint vision. I am hopeful that 
we will be able to hold additional committee hearings as well. This 
will offer the opportunity to gain a variety of perspectives and ideas.
  Mr. President, the current system is broken and needs to be fixed. We 
cannot patch up what is already a patchwork job training effort. We 
need to start over and produce a system that works for everyone.
  I look forward to working with all who are interested in reform, 
including the chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, 
Senator Kennedy, and Senator Kerrey from Nebraska.


                        bipartisan job training

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to lend my complete support and 
encouragement to this effort by Senators Kennedy and Kassebaum to craft 
bipartisan legislation to establish a Federal job training strategy. 
The chairman and ranking member of the Labor and Human Resources 
Committee are to be commended for tackling this critical issue.
  I was an original sponsor of the Job Training and Consolidation Act, 
introduced earlier this year by Senator Kassebaum. This legislation 
proposes to create a commission to make recommendations on 
consolidating all Federal job training programs. It would also grant 
waivers to States and localities to facilitate program coordination at 
the local level--where it belongs.
  While the legislation is an obvious threat to many Federal and State 
agencies--as well as to a number of congressional committees--
jurisdictional gridlock must not frustrate the development of a 
cohesive national job training system.
  According to a recent General Accounting Office [GAO] study, there 
are 154 separate job training programs, administered by 145 different 
agencies, at an annual cost to taxpayers of $25 billion. In a broad 
audit, GAO concluded few benchmarks exist to determine the efficacy of 
such programs; while most keep track of the number of trainees they 
serve, not one maintains job placement data.
  This lack of accountability is absolutely unacceptable. We cannot 
afford to squander scarce Federal resources on programs whose success 
or failure cannot be measured. In my own State of Rhode Island, as in 
many others, the need for effective training programs for dislocated 
workers and noncollege bound youth is greater than ever. We must ensure 
that our sizable job training investment is wise, efficacious, and 
justifiable.
  Senators Kennedy and Kassebaum have developed a statement of 
objectives which I believe to be an excellent starting point for the 
development of a bipartisan bill. It includes the following five 
premises for a comprehensive job training system--all of which I 
strongly support:
  First, it should serve the needs of job-seekers and employers--the 
two most critical participants in such a system;
  Second, it should be readily accessible and comprehensible to all 
participants;
  Third, it should be focused on performance and accountability--we 
should know how many job seekers actually get placed as a result of the 
training they receive;
  Fourth, States and localities should have primary responsibility for 
design and implementation of job training systems;
  Fifth, finally, a job training system should be based upon local 
labor market needs, so that the training is geared to employer needs in 
a given area. By necessity, this means any such system must have the 
active involvement of the private sector to be a success.
  I want to thank Senators Kennedy and Kassebaum for their initiative, 
and look forward to working with them as they develop legislation to 
create a national job training system.
  Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. 
Kerrey] is recognized.


                 job training consolidation act of 1994

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise as well in support of the Job 
Training Consolidation Act of 1994. Senator Kassebaum and I spoke about 
it earlier. I have really come to the floor not only to reinforce the 
need for this legislation, but to praise the senior Senator from 
Massachusetts for his comments earlier and for a longstanding 
commitment to job training in the United States of America.
  It seems to me that as I examine and look at, and very often am 
tormented by, the problems I see today with the American family, there 
is no better or faster or more certain cure for what ails the American 
family today--which is still the preeminent institution in America, 
pound for pound, delivering more leaders, more artists, more builders, 
more creative individuals, than any other institution that we have--
there is no better or faster cure for what ails the American family 
today than a job that provides an individual with not only the 
resources needed to support a family, but with some sense of dignity, 
some sense of value, some sense of importance.
  All of us know that the nature of the work force has changed 
dramatically in our lifetimes. In my case, I got out of high school in 
1961 and over three-fourths of my high school class went directly into 
the work force. In that year, it was possible to find a job relatively 
easily. The rule was that that job provided you with enough money that 
you could get married and support a family. You began to buy a home, 
and you did a couple years in the service and you came back and 
expected to be on the job 40 or 45 years. That was the rule, Mr. 
President.
  It was the rule that that job was there almost regardless of what 
your skills were. If you had a willingness to work hard and had a 
willingness to show up on time and had the right attitude toward the 
job, there was an abundance of good paying jobs.
  Well, Mr. President, there are not very many low-skill, high-paying 
jobs left in America. Congress may be the exception to that. We have in 
America today a real premium on skills, and all of us know it. We have 
seen the consequences for a young person who graduates from high school 
without the ability to do multistep mathematics. We have seen the 
consequences for a young person or an adult in the work force if they 
do not have the skills needed to operate the equipment that is required 
to keep American workers productive. Thus, job training in 1994 is more 
important than it ever has been, far more important than it ever has 
been, Mr. President.
  All of us understand that it is likely, over the course of someone's 
life, that they are going to be in, perhaps, half a dozen different 
jobs over the course of a working lifetime, and the requirement for 
increasing job skills is apparent just from that fact.
  The dilemma that we have, Mr. President, is that of the 154 different 
Federal programs that we have, very often, the most obvious output from 
those programs is frustration. Very often the most obvious product that 
is produced is not increased job skills but is frustration from having 
to deal with the rules and regulations of the bureaucracy being told, 
``No, this is not the place you go, you have to go some other place.'' 
Just trying to get the various agencies to work together, Mr. 
President, very often is the most difficult thing of all.
  This piece of legislation sets in place a process whereby not only 
can we consolidate and reduce that frustration, but we can save 
taxpayers money as well. But we can also, Mr. President, do one 
additional thing, that is, to try to bring the power to make decisions 
about the kinds of training that is going to be done to the State and 
to the local level; whereas, again, as all of us know, State and local 
governments are increasingly not only competing for economic 
development, but they have come to the conclusion that job training is 
a crucial part of their being able to claim success.
  In Nebraska, we recently competed both for the BMW plant and Mercedes 
plant, and in both cases, the winning State offered a package of job 
training to be able to secure that victory. Thus, both States and local 
governments, Mr. President, are far better equipped to make decisions 
about how to train, where to train, and what to train in a rapidly 
changing marketplace.
  So, Mr. President, I come to the floor, again, to reiterate and 
reinforce my strong support for this legislation, and the importance of 
it ought to be self-evident to all of us. I know that it has been very 
evident to the senior Senator from Massachusetts, who has been working 
on this issue and been leading on this issue for better than a quarter 
of a century. I appreciate very much, again, the leadership of the 
Senator from Kansas, and I hope this legislation will have an 
opportunity to move this year because, as I said, Mr. President, it is 
needed today more than ever before.


                             job retraining

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I would like to comment also on the move 
that has been made by Senator Kennedy and Senator Kassebaum on job 
retraining. I welcome their leadership on this.
  This is a problem. It is not a simple problem.
  I offered an amendment, which I am pleased to say is now law, 
permitting Indian reservations to consolidate their programs. They have 
that authority as of October 1. It will be interesting to see what 
happens.
  Several of us asked the GAO to do a study on this whole question of 
job retraining, how we can avoid duplication. But, there is a bit of an 
exaggeration. We say 154 programs. That includes the Pell grant 
programs and that includes rehabilitation programs for those who have 
disabilities. It is not a simple thing.
  I hope we approach it not expecting to work miracles but trying to do 
a better job. And when we do a better job, we are going to help our 
society.
  Our Secretary of Labor--and, incidentally, it is great to see the 
Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education working well 
together--but the Secretary of Labor says if you are well trained, 
technology is your friend. If you are not well trained, technology is 
your enemy. He is right and we have to do a better job.


                reforming federal job training programs

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the concepts 
put forth by Senator Kennedy and Senator Kassebaum for consolidating 
and reforming federal job training programs.
  American workers must compete in a rapidly changing world economy. 
They must be qualified to handle jobs that did not exist 10 years ago 
if we as a nation are going to be successful in solving many of our 
other problems including crime and welfare dependency.
  Although I am sure that all of the 154 Federal programs now in effect 
were well intentioned when proposed, it seems clear that we now have a 
multitude of free-standing training programs that overlap in the 
services they provide while possibly not providing some needed 
services. This results in wasted funds and confusion on the part of 
local service providers and individuals seeking assistance. Even more 
disturbing to me is the fact that most Federal agencies do not know how 
successful their programs are in helping participants enter or reenter 
the work force.
  As we continue to grapple with the budget deficit, we need to look at 
areas where Government spending and inefficiencies can be curtailed. If 
we have a job training programs that have never been funded, they 
should be terminated. If programs overlap, they should be combined. If 
there is waste, it needs to be eliminated.
  With Federal expenditures reaching $24 billion per year for job 
training, it is clear that we need to establish standards of 
accountability and determine exactly how this money is being spent and 
what kind of results we are getting.
  The needs of our work force can be more effectively met if we pursue 
the concepts put forth today by my colleagues. Whether we are talking 
about displaced workers or economically disadvantaged workers, they 
will best be served by a system focused on performance and integration 
of private sector businesses in the job training process. Ultimately 
the success of any program should be measured by whether the 
participants receive long-term job placement. Too often training 
programs are not connected to the available employment opportunities in 
the area.
  Finally, I know it is important to the job service personnel in my 
State that the administrative framework set up by the Federal 
Government provide flexibility to the States. The States are best 
equipped to integrate job training with educational and economic 
development opportunities in the areas they are serving.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to develop an integrated 
accountable work force development system.


                         the job training issue

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I would like to compliment Senator Kennedy 
and Senator Kassebaum for their attention to this important issue. 
Better coordination of the delivery of our employment and training 
programs is clearly an issue we need to address. America's greatest 
asset is its human resources. How we invest in these resources is 
critical to our success as a nation.
  Today, American productivity is the global standard. U.S. workers 
remain the most productive in the world. Regrettably, though, in recent 
years our productivity growth has been stagnant and other countries are 
beginning to catch up to us. In 1950, for example, Japanese 
productivity was about 16 percent of American productivity. Today, it 
has risen to around 75 percent. Furthermore, since 1950 Japanese 
productivity has increased at a rate of 6 percent per year, while 
United States productivity has increased at only a rate of 1.9 percent.
  One of the causes of our stagnant productivity growth is that, unlike 
other nations, the United States does not have a coherent system for 
preparing people for the work force. Employment and training programs 
in the United States are often disconnected and uncoordinated. As a 
result, individuals often get lost in the maze and do not get the 
assistance they need.
  We need to put the pieces together. If we are to succeed in meeting 
the challenges of the global economy, we must create a comprehensive, 
coordinated employment training system that is efficient, accessible, 
and effective.
  This is a problem that has faced several Congresses and different 
administrations, but the Clinton administration has really taken the 
lead on finding solutions. I commend the President for taking serious 
steps to address this issue.
  The School-to-Work Opportunities Act, which I am proud to have been 
the chief Senate sponsor of, encourages coordination of school-to-work, 
tech-prep and other similar programs into a single school-to-work 
system. The Reemployment Act, which I am a cosponsor of, consolidates 
eight dislocated worker programs into a single reemployment system. 
This initiative also includes a proposal for one-stop career centers to 
help make all programs more accessible to those in need. In addition, 
the President has established a commission to look at the issue of 
coordination. These are steps in the right direction.
  States and localities have also been taking steps to address this 
issue. We need to build on these successes. While we are beginning to 
take serious steps in this area, we can do better. This is why the work 
of Senator Kennedy and Senator Kassebaum is so important.
  Much attention is focused on the number of programs that exist. The 
General Accounting Office has identified 154 different programs. Others 
have argued that this number is greatly exaggerated. These critics 
point out that it includes some programs that have never been funded, 
some programs only tangentially related to training like Health Care 
for the Homeless, and the Job Training Partnership Act and the Carl 
Perkins Act, were both counted as over 20 programs each. Indeed, an 
entire debate can take place on how many programs exist.
  The number of programs, however, is not the issue. It is only part of 
the issue. The greater issues are: Whether proliferation of programs 
obstructs the delivery of services and training assistance; whether 
there are programs that are inefficient and unnecessarily duplicative; 
and whether the number of programs hinders the development of a 
coherent, coordinated system. If we focus only on the number of 
programs, we will fail to see other obstacles that exist. We will also 
fail to see other avenues available for creating a better coordinated 
system.
  For example, in a recent report completed at my request, the General 
Accounting Office outlined a myriad of barriers that States and 
localities have encountered in trying to improve training assistance 
delivery. GAO found that different definitions of eligibility, 
conflicting program requirements and different funding cycles have made 
it difficult to pull programs together. We should weigh these kinds of 
facts as we consider how to improve our training system.
  No single program will be able to satisfy the needs of all people. To 
move forward responsibility on this issue, we must recognize that there 
are different populations of workers that face different obstacles and 
have different needs. A 16-year-old trying to enter the work force has 
different needs than a 50-year-old dislocated workers trying to reenter 
the work force. The support systems and assistance needed by an 
individual with a disability are different than the needs of a veteran 
or displaced homemaker. We need a system that will provide everyone 
with the kind of assistance they need.
  We must be careful in this effort that we do not disrupt services to 
populations with special needs who, because they are too difficult or 
too expensive to serve, may face difficulties under consolidated 
programs. Clearly, this includes individuals with disabilities.
  Congress has consistently supported the position that individuals 
with disabilities, particularly those with severe disabilities, have 
greater and more complex barriers to employment than the general 
population. The successes of these programs depends upon the 
availability of highly skilled, well-trained personnel who have access 
to the latest in technology and research specified to the needs of 
people with disabilities.
  A case study of one State that combined Rehabilitation Act funds with 
other human service dollars for approximately 5 years during the 1970's 
shows a disastrous decline in rehabilitation services during that 
period, despite State assurances that requirements of the 
Rehabilitation Act were being carried out.
  Consolidation is not an end in and of itself. We need to move toward 
a more efficient system, but we must be careful how we reach that goal. 
We must make sure that in our zeal to streamline Government and 
consolidate programs we do not lose sight of the commitment we have 
also made to providing effective service to those who most need our 
help.
  In addition, the issue before us is not how much we spend on 
training. Many would argue, myself included, that we do not spend 
enough on employment and training. The issue is how do we spend our 
limited resources effectively. Right now, we are not spending our money 
wisely. States and localities spend a great deal of their resources 
trying to navigate through a maze of conflicting requirements. We have 
to focus on how to get more for our dollar.
  Finally, the debate should not be about pointing fingers, but about 
pinpointing solutions. The proliferation of disconnected, categorical 
training programs is not the fault of any one party, any one branch of 
Government, or any one Member of Congress. It is the responsibility of 
all of us to work together to find an effective, responsible approach 
to improving how we deliver training in the United States. I am pleased 
the Senator Kennedy and Senator Kassebaum have taken the lead on this 
issue.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President.

                          ____________________