[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 108 (Monday, August 8, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
                  RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I think it important to supplement 
briefly the arguments made by the chairman in opposition to the pending 
amendment by the Senator from Florida, Senator Graham. He wishes to 
transfer some $100 million from salaries and expenses, from the 
Departments of Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education, to 
immigrant education.
  I wish that we had sufficient money to expand immigrant education by 
$100 million, but the bill which the Senator from Iowa and I have 
structured, which has been approved by the full subcommittee and the 
full Appropriations Committee, already has taken into account very 
serious constraints on these three departments.
  When it became evident that Senator Graham might introduce this 
amendment, we had been provided with information from the three 
departments which, I think it is important to note, has the reasons for 
objecting to this transfer. I might say, preliminarily, that the 
overall budget of Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education is just 
slightly under $70 billion. But in allocating the resources, even $100 
million is very, very difficult, and we have done it as best we can. It 
might seem easy to take $100 million for an allocation which is as 
attractive on the surface as immigrant education, and that is an 
attractive account. I wish we had more money for immigrant education. 
When you say take it from salaries and expenses, you might be thinking 
of some enormous administrative overhead which would not really impact 
too heavily on these three departments.
  But this is what the Department of Labor has provided to us as to 
what the impact will be if you take $34 million from the Department of 
Labor's salary and expenses: It would impact severely on the 
Department's worker-safety enforcement initiative aimed at improving 
safety in the workplace. The Department of Labor enforcement activities 
have declined by 19 percent in the last 14 years. The amendment, by 
taking $34 million, would block OSHA's long overdue initiative to 
target inspections on the worst violators of the health and safety 
laws; it would render the Bureau of Labor Statistics unable to 
undertake the proposed revision of the consumer price index, which is 
very important for making a lot of Government calculations; it would 
reduce the number of mine inspections, which will put miners at greater 
risk, and will reduce the Department's ability to apprehend and 
prosecute those who embezzle or defraud pension plans and health 
benefit plans.
  There is more, but suffice that for the moment.
  The Department of Health and Human Services has given us a list of 
problems which would be impacted by taking $33 million from their 
salaries and expenses, such as impacting on the payment of Medicare 
claims through the Medicare contractors; the entire intermural research 
program and clinical center at NIH; epidemiological and disease 
surveillance staff capacity at the Centers for Disease Control; 
capacity to manage and implement the expansion of Head Start and reform 
of the welfare system; and the Social Security Administration's 
disability determinations operations.
  If the funds were taken from salaried expenses of the Department of 
Education, the impact would eliminate the Student Aid Guide and Student 
Aid Information Center; would significantly delay the award of grants, 
loans, and work-study opportunities to the 7 million students targeted; 
it would eliminate management improvements on the subject of fraud and 
abuse; it would delay the award of Federal dollars to the States and 
would require about 30 furlough days for the Department's 5,000 
employees.
  Those are the representations made by these three departments. So 
that when you see what appears to be an important amendment offered 
with only salaries and expenses, something which has the appearance of 
being overhead, it might be easy to do. These are the reasons why it 
would have a significant impact and why I join Senator Harkin in 
opposing this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] is 
recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I believe that the Senator from Kansas has remarks she 
would like to make. I ask unanimous consent that following the Senator 
from Kansas, I might be able to speak for up to 15 minutes as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Kansas is recognized.


                               job corps

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I appreciate the Senator yielding for a few comments 
on the Labor-HHS appropriations.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, on June 30, Senator Kerrey and I sent 
a letter to the Appropriations Committee asking that no new funding be 
approved for Job Corps until the Senate could investigate reports by 
the Labor Department's inspector general that criticized the program. 
These reports identified serious shortcomings in Job Corps' management, 
its performance measurements approach, and the program's overall cost 
effectiveness.
  I want to acknowledge the committee's restraint in voting to limit 
new funding of the program despite a vigorous administration request 
for moneys to substantially expand the program.
  I want to especially thank Senator Byrd and Senator Harkin for their 
leadership in limiting funding, particularly in regard to the 
construction of new centers. I am sure the Senators share my concern 
that we do not want to fund any new Job Corps until we can be assured 
the existing ones are being operated efficiently and cost effectively.
  Mr. President, I had intended to offer an amendment today to freeze 
funding for Job Corps at the current budget level until the Senate 
could conduct a thorough oversight of the program. I will forgo that 
amendment at this time in response to an offer by Senator Kennedy to 
hold two hearings in the Labor and Human Resources Committee on Job 
Corps. Senator Kennedy has promised to hold one hearing on the program 
before the Senate adjourns and a followup hearing in the new Congress.
  I want to acknowledge Senator Kennedy for responding to the concerns 
voiced by Senator Kerrey and me regarding Job Corps and agreeing to 
hold these hearings. I know the Senator from Massachusetts shares our 
concerns that all job training programs must be held to higher 
standards of accountability and cost effectiveness in the current 
deficit environment.
  Mr. President, Job Corps holds a unique position within the Federal 
job training universe. It is the oldest, the most highly regarded, and 
the single, most expensive program. Its budget for the current fiscal 
year is $1.04 billion, which translates to more than $23,000 per annual 
placement slot. That is the equivalent of 4 years tuition at the 
University of Kansas.
  When you combine the program's cost with its regulation and the 
criticisms of the Labor Department's own IG, I believe the Senate is 
obligated to take a closer look at its outcomes.
  To my surprise, the Secretary of Labor has dismissed most of the 
issues Senator Kerrey and I raised in our letter to the Appropriations 
Committee. He referred to them as ``erroneous * * * or 
misinterpretations of isolated facts'' taken from IG reports. With all 
due respect to Secretary Reich, I stand by the findings in our letter.
  To those who dismiss these reports as old news, I would suggest that 
their age does not invalidate their accuracy. If that is the case, then 
I think it is fair to question the effectiveness of a program such as 
Job Corps, whose reputation is essentially based on research more than 
12 years old.
  Mr. President, here are some of the IG's findings about Job Corps 
that I find particularly disturbing.
  Low job-trade match: Out of 60,000 new Job Corps enrollees each year, 
only 12 percent find jobs that match the vocational skills they gain in 
the program. Providing students with marketable job skills and matching 
employment is one of the program's major goals. I believe such low 
placements challenge the program's cost-effectiveness.
  High dropout rates: One third of new trainees drop out within the 
first 90 days, and 50 percent leave by the 6-month mark. Job Corps says 
the dropout rate results from its strict discipline, which is a sign of 
the program's success. I believe it means, in some cases, wasted 
resources and mediocre management.
  One hundred million dollars spent with ``no measurable benefits'': 
This is the cost for those who started the program but dropped out, 
found no job, and received no educational or job skills from the 
program. Job Corps calls this cost ``insignificant.'' I call it 
unacceptable.
  Questionable placement numbers: Job Corps claims a 70-percent 
placement rate, including those who leave and find jobs on their own. 
The IG reported it was 57 percent for program year 1992. The main 
reason for the discrepancy is that the program has routinely excluded 
first quarter dropouts from its evaluation base. The IG also questioned 
Job Corps' accounting practice of crediting 37 percent of the trainees 
it cannot locate after leaving the program, with finding a job. The 
number of students who cannot be located after they leave has risen to 
22 percent, a figure that is far too high.
  Little performance change in low-rated Job Corps centers: All centers 
were rated annually from 1988 thru 1992. The low performers showed 
little or no improvement during that period. Why add more centers when 
many existing ones annually fail to meet minimum standards?
  Insufficient job placement measurement: The required standard for job 
placement is 20 hours during the first week at a job. Temporary, 
parttime, or seasonal jobs qualify. This means that a person could work 
3 days on a job, then leave and still be considered a successful job 
placement. Job Corps indicates it is reviewing the policy. I think the 
standard should be raised to a 6-month employability check.
  Value of advanced training programs: The IG recently audited a union 
contract for an advanced program in data processing skills. These 
programs are for Job Corps trainees who have graduated from the first-
year program and are allowed to stay for a second year. The average 
cost per trainee for this program was estimated to be $37,000. The 
contract was $16.6 million for a total of 1,347 enrollees from July 
1991 to August 1993.
  The placement results of this program were: a 9-percent job-trade 
match, with 22 percent of the students placed in other training-related 
jobs. These training-related jobs included an Amtrak train attendent, 
station cleaner, and coach cleaner. These jobs obviously did not 
require costly computer skills. Forty eight percent of the entering 
class dropped out and were not placed. Nearly one-fourth of the 
graduates lasted less than a year in a job. This statistic appears to 
refute this program's goal of permanent, long-term employment. Yet, 
this union was given a new, sole-source contract for $22 million to 
continue this training.
  I also have concerns about the absence of caps on administrative 
costs for these union instruction contracts, as most other JTPA 
programs require. The total cost of union contracts for this year was 
$42 million. Three of these unions had administrative costs ranging 
from 33 percent to 37 percent.
  According to the IG, the average starting hourly wage for graduates 
of Job Corps' vocational skills programs was $5.92, as of June 30 last 
year. This is an entry-level wage in many regions of this country. And 
these were jobs for the program's top graduates.
  Those who left the program after 4 to 6 months found jobs starting at 
$4.80 per hour. That represented an increase of only $.31 per hour over 
what they earned when they entered the program.
  On the one hand, Secretary Reich has called Job Corps, ``an example 
of building on what we know works best.'' On the other hand, we have 
reports from the Labor Department's own inspector general which tell a 
very different story.
  That is why I believe we need these oversight hearings: to permit the 
Senate to explore these conflicting views and gain objective evaluation 
of the program's real value.
  The last Senate oversight hearing on Job Corps took place in February 
1984, more than 10 years ago. For a program costing more than 1 billion 
a year, we should and can do better than that.
  I intend to continue my efforts to encourage better accountability 
and greater cost-effectiveness not only of Job Corps, but of all 
Federal job training programs. I hope my colleagues will join me in 
that formidable and important task.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I would like to add my comments to those 
of my good friend from Kansas, Senator Kassebaum, regarding Job Corps. 
We recently received disturbing statistics from the Department of 
Labor's Inspector General regarding the performance of the Job Corps 
Program. Because I firmly believe that all federally funded programs 
must be accountable to Congress for their overall cost-effectiveness, I 
felt that the inspector general's findings should be brought to the 
attention of the Senate. Thus, I was pleased when Senator Kennedy, the 
distinguished chairman of the Senate Labor Committee, notified me that 
he would hold hearings before Congress adjourns to examine the 
inspector general's report.
  Job Corps plays an important role in training disadvantaged young 
people for constructive and meaningful employment. It is clear that 
this is a difficult job; many Job Corps participants arrive at the 
training centers without adequate education to pursue a good job. Thus, 
Job Corps centers offer not only vocational training, but basic 
education and social instruction as well.
  I have been a strong supporter of the Job Corps Program in the past. 
But this report disturbed me, as I am sure it has everyone who 
recognizes that now possibly more than ever before, we must insist upon 
financial accountability and thorough cost analysis of every federal 
program.
  Mr. President, I have no intention of throwing the baby out with the 
bath water, so to speak. I am not advocating that we dismantle or even 
cripple the Job Corps Program in terms of funding. This program has 
been and continues to be an integral part of our Nation's job training 
system. I am, however, adamant about insisting that all programs are 
managed with demonstrated financial credibility and program 
effectiveness.
  Again, I would like to commend Senator Kennedy for his proposal that 
we hold hearings on this subject, and I want to thank again my 
distinguished colleague from Kansas for her dedication to ensuring 
accountability in these programs. In so doing, we will continue to 
ensure an effective and resourceful Job Corps Program and job training 
system that meets the needs of our citizens.

                          ____________________