[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 156 (Tuesday, October 10, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14851-S14876]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1995

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill. 

[[Page S 14852]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I yield to the Senator from Rhode Island whatever 
time is necessary for the offering of his amendment.


                           Amendment No. 2886

(Purpose: To provide for the State distribution of funds for secondary 
    school vocational education, postsecondary and adult vocational 
                    education, and adult education)

  Mr. PELL. I thank the Senator from Kansas, and I send an amendment to 
the desk on behalf of the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] and 
myself and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Pell], for Mr. Jeffords, 
     for himself and Mr. Pell, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2886.

  Mr. PELL. Madam President, I ask that further reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 77, strike lines 7 through 18, and insert the 
     following:
       (4) State determinations.--From the amount available to a 
     State educational agency under paragraph (2)(B) for a program 
     year, such agency shall distribute such funds for workforce 
     education activities in such State as follows:
       (A) 75 percent of such amount shall be distributed for 
     secondary school vocational education in accordance with 
     section 112, or for postsecondary and adult vocational 
     education in accordance with section 113, or for both; and
       (B) 25 percent of such amount shall be distributed for 
     adult education in accordance with section 114.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island should be aware 
there are 45 minutes allocated, equally divided, for this amendment.
  Mr. PELL. Right. That will be done by the managers of the bill.
  I want to express my strong support for the amendment offered by 
Senator Jeffords.
  The bill provides that 25 percent of the funds go to the work force 
education. This amendment would stipulate that 25 percent of those 
education funds would go to adult education and 75 percent to 
vocational education.
  To my mind, it is very important the adult education be assured of 
funding. In State after State this is a program that is run by 
volunteers and groups that do not have substantial political clout. 
Consequently, I fear that adult education will be at a considerable 
disadvantage in the give and take that will lead to dividing the pie 
with vocational education.
  Today, adult education serves only half of all those who seek its 
services. This says nothing about outreach to those who need such 
services, but do not seek them. If the one-stop career centers operate 
as they are envisioned, it is reasonable to expect that we will 
identify many more adults who need adult education services. That, in 
turn, could well overwhelm an adult education system that is already 
overburdened.
  Approval of the Jeffords amendment would mean simply that adult 
education would be ensured a flow of funds that would enable it to 
continue the very excellent and much-needed services it now provides. I 
would urge my colleagues to support its passage and that I strongly 
support it myself.
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment. I think this is a critical time in our history when we 
examine as we go forward how we are going to take care of the difficult 
problems facing our society. We are dealing in this bill with people 
who have difficulty obtaining employment, and at the same time in a 
related bill we are dealing with individuals who are on welfare.
  Let me take a look at the overall needs of the Nation in order to 
emphasize how important it is that we allocate our scarce resources 
appropriately.
  There are approximately 90 million people in this Nation who are 
functionally illiterate. There are also large numbers, millions, who 
are unemployed. What would be the cost of helping all 90 million 
achieve literacy? If we dedicated merely $10 per person, it would cost 
$900 million; or $100 per person, the figure would be $9 billion. 
However, to be truly effective, a more realistic figure would be $1,000 
per person or $90 billion to help those 90 million people achieve 
literacy.
  As far as unemployment is concerned, the figures are less specific, 
but we do know that for every space we have for employment training 
now, there are 10 people who are unemployed or underemployed who desire 
that slot. That leaves nine people who desire this training unserved 
for every one who receives training.
  The amendment we have before us today will help ensure that we 
adequately provide literacy services for those who must, at least, 
overcome this obstacle before entering the work force; this is the 
essence of adult basic education. The amount of money that we are 
dealing with in this particular bill is approximately $5 billion.
  When you remember those figures I gave you on what it would cost to 
help those 90 million people achieve literacy or the fact that it would 
probably cost 10 times as much to provide adequate job training for 
those who require it, you realize how desperate the need is for these 
funds to be adequately appropriated.
  With respect to our amendment, my own experience causes me to be 
concerned that the pressures that are placed on these bills and the 
kinds of incentives that are placed in these bills will tend to focus 
resources on employment training at the expense of adult basic 
education.
  I say that from my experience, because I have been in either the 
House or Senate for 21 years now, and I have been involved in all the 
employment training legislation that has gone on during that period of 
time. I have watched how these scarce resources were moved in one 
direction or another.
  Before I go through that, let us look at what this bill and the 
welfare bill encourage States and individuals to do. One, we have the 
social welfare bill. The primary emphasis in this bill is to move 
people off welfare; that is, the States are rewarded for moving people 
off welfare.
  On the other hand, and keep this in mind because it kind of shows 
what can happen here if we are not careful, there is a provision that 
could terminate benefits after 2 years. That is an incentive to the 
individual that says, ``I must get educated, I must get a job or else I 
lose my benefits.''
  My experience tells me that the incentive created to get people off 
welfare, combined with the incentives we have now in employment 
training to try and move people off the unemployment rolls and on to 
the employment rolls will inadvertently result in what is referred to 
as creaming. That is the emphasis will be to focus the funds on those 
for whom it is easiest to get off welfare and to get employment. That 
means, however, those who need the funding and education the most, 
those who are on welfare now and have been on welfare for many years, 
will probably have no opportunity to get the education they need 
because States have responded to incentives to focus resources in other 
directions.
  Let me now turn to some charts, first of all, to emphasize what I 
have been saying. I point to the first chart. I told all of you to 
remember the article from the business section of the Washington Post 
that came to the attention of all of us, ``Battling Against Workplace 
Illiteracy.'' This article emphasized how critical and how important 
the failure of our country to have provided an adequate education to 
our people has been to this Nation. I will just read the subtitle: 
``Companies Take Action as Awareness Increases of $225 Billion Drag on 
U.S. Productivity.'' At the same time, as we remind ourselves that we 
are here to figure out how it is that this Nation can reduce the 
deficit, it seems very clear, when I look at the next chart, and other 
charts thereafter, that it is education that is a key to balancing the 
budget. If we do not improve the education of this Nation, not only 
will our deficit not get better, but it will get worse.
  Let us take a look at the total drag on the economy now caused by the 
failure of our educational system. I tell you, when I see the 
statistics--I do not know how we got into this. In our schools, 50 
percent of the kids who graduate, the ``forgotten half'' as we 

[[Page S 14853]]
are prone to refer to them now, graduate from high school functionally 
illiterate. That is a big part of how we got to where we are.
  Let us take a look at this next chart, which indicates over half a 
trillion dollars in gross domestic product is lost each year because we 
have failed to educate our people properly. The $225 billion I 
mentioned earlier is in this piece of the pie, which is green, $225 
billion for the cost of illiteracy to the marketplace. That is the 
inability of people to handle a job they ought to be able to handle has 
created a drag on our business to such a degree that we lose about $225 
billion of productivity annually.
  Now let us get to the relevance of the two bills I have referred to 
today. First of all, take a look at $208 billion for welfare 
expenditures. That means that the individuals that are on welfare, as 
against not being on welfare and in the employment sector, costs us 
$208 billion. You see there is some double counting in here, obviously, 
because we are already up to $433 billion, and we still have another 
factor to go.
  The other factor is for training of employees. The businesses in this 
Nation are required to spend $200 billion a year on either skill 
training or literacy programs. In fact, if you put literacy in there, 
it goes even higher. That is another burden on our businesses. If you 
add those up, we are over $600 billion, with some double counting.
  In addition to that, if you consider what it would save this Nation 
by having higher revenues because businesses and individuals would be 
earning more, we lose another $125 billion.
  My point, and a critical point, is that education is the key to our 
problems; education is the key to our future.
  Now let me take a look at the next chart which I think will put 
things in perspective also.
  We all say, ``Hey, it's not our State. We are all doing fine. Our 
kids are getting educated. We don't have a problem.''
  Take a look at this chart. Those in green are the best States, and 
that means about 25 percent of their adults are functionally 
illiterate. Most of the States are even worse. Most of them are in the 
orange and red. Thirty to fifty percent of the adults in these States 
are functionally illiterate. The final category contains a large 
portion of the population and a lot of States. These States are shown 
in blue and have populations in which 50 percent or more of the adults 
are functionally illiterate. What a staggering indication that our 
country is in trouble.
  The final chart will show you the relevance of illiteracy to the 
welfare problem. This one is very critical, and I think everyone should 
be aware of what we are talking about. The percentage of welfare 
recipients who have less than a high school diploma: Of those on 
welfare more than 5 years, almost 70 percent have less than a high 
school diploma. Of those on welfare 2 to 5 years, over 40 percent did 
not get a high school diploma. And of those who have less than 2 years 
on welfare, 30 percent.
  What does that mean? It means that if we do not provide basic adult 
education, then there is no hope that those who have been on welfare 
more than 5 years are going to have an opportunity to get off welfare 
and to be able to be taxpaying citizens of this country.
  I point out that what this means is that the way the incentives are 
built into this bill--and that is to try and enable people to move from 
unemployment to employment and to reduce the welfare rolls--all the 
emphasis will be placed upon this group right here, those that are on 
welfare less than 2 years. They are the ones more likely to be able to 
be employed, more likely to get off the unemployment and welfare rolls. 
And yet, there is little incentive to help those who have been on 
welfare more than 5 years. Without adult basic education these long-
term welfare recipients, more than 60 percent of whom do not have a 
high school diploma, will not have the opportunity to become 
employable. In fact, I would guess that the incentives for States in 
this bill are such that very few long-term welfare recipients will be 
able to get the kind of education needed to give them any hope of 
getting off of welfare if we do not have adequate funding for adult 
education.

  All this amendment does is to make sure that a minimum of 25 percent 
of the work force education funds here will be used for adult basic 
education--education for those on welfare who really need it.
  I am sure, in my own mind, from my own experience, that if we do not 
pass this amendment, you are going to see the percentage of funds spent 
on adult education go down steadily. We will see more and more people 
suffering and losing their benefits, and we will have to restructure 
our work force development programs. It has happened before. It 
happened when we went from CETA to the Job Training Partnership Act. 
Since then, we have seen that we still did not effectively serve all of 
the target population. Now, without this amendment, this bill may very 
well have the exact same result.
  So I urge you to support this amendment which would ensure the very 
minimum necessary to help long-term welfare recipients who need the 
most help get off of welfare and not just help those who need the 
minimum assistance to get off of welfare.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). There are 22 minutes 30 
seconds, and the Senator from Rhode Island has 12 minutes 25 seconds.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. If I may comment for a moment, many of us put 
education as a top priority of interest and concern. But there are no 
two people, I think, in the U.S. Senate who have spoken with greater 
dedication to the importance of education than Senator Pell, who has 
lent his name to one of the most important student aid programs that 
there is, the Pell grant program, and Senator Jeffords. So it is with 
regret that I must oppose this amendment. I opposed it in committee 
where it was defeated on a tie vote, and I oppose it today for one 
major reason.
  To me, it is an important one, because it goes to the heart of what 
we have tried to do with the work force development legislation. It 
would reduce the State flexibility, which is really at the heart of S. 
143. Many have said that S. 143 is still too bureaucratic. Mr. 
President, we ended 80-some programs. We have really revolutionized the 
way we handle job training, and we have tried very hard to keep a 
flexibility in place so that the States can determine how best to 
design a program that fits the need of that State.
  Major goals of the legislation are to create a single work force 
development system, to allow States flexibility in deciding what is 
needed. Throughout the development of this legislation, we have made 
every effort to minimize the number of mandates and funding set-asides. 
Some guidance to the States is necessary to assure that the Federal 
dollars are appropriately and effectively spent. That is why the bill 
sets minimum amounts--25 percent--which must be spent both on work 
force training and work force education activities respectively. Beyond 
that point, however, I do not believe we should be dictating the mix of 
education or training activities the State feels is most important. If 
we start down this path, I suggest that we will soon arrive at the same 
place we started, which was 90-odd separate, narrowly defined programs.
  That is why, as I say, with all of the good intent of the authors of 
this amendment, I must oppose this. I do not believe that adult basic 
education services will be forgotten without this set-aside. The bill 
already requires that funds be provided for these services within the 
25 percent that is reserved for education activities.
  So I just suggest, Mr. President, that I think we have addressed that 
concern without, again, going back to a set-aside that would be very 
restrictive to the flexibility that is necessary.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Rhode Island yield time, 
or is the Senator using time on the bill?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 5 minutes on the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment. I think 
the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from Vermont have made a 
very strong case for adult education. We are perhaps the only advanced 
industrial nation in the world in which 

[[Page S 14854]]
illiteracy is increasing. The fact is that the States themselves have 
not been responsive to this problem in developing adult education 
programs. It was the hope of all of us, when we developed the initial 
adult education programs at the Federal level, that the value of these 
programs would be clearly seen and the States themselves would develop 
such programs. But that has not been the case.
  With the existing adult education program, it is oversubscribed by 
twice the number of individuals than actually receive services. There 
are 100 percent more individuals who want to participate in the adult 
education programs than are able to do so. So there is a great demand 
and desire for adult education.
  Finally, Mr. President, what we have seen is that adult education 
programs have enormous benefits for both the individuals participating 
in the programs and for the economy. These programs are also enormously 
important in terms of the education of the children of adults who 
participate. One of the most powerful reasons for increasing support 
for adult education is because, for the most part, parents that are 
involved in these programs and have small children are able to 
participate more effectively in the development and the education of 
their children. So this has a dramatic impact in terms of bringing 
children along and enhancing their ability to achieve academic 
excellence.
  So, Mr. President, I know that the Senator from Kansas has included 
in her legislation a provision reserving 25 percent of the funds in the 
block grant for education, and that her bill also requires that there 
be funds spent on adult education, but there are no figures specified. 
Looking at what has happened so far in the States, there is very little 
reason to believe that the States are going to embrace adult education 
programs in a robust kind of way. Adult education, it seems to me, has 
a very special standing, an importance in terms of our citizenry. 
Therefore, I think it deserves the kind of targeting in the legislation 
which the amendment would provide.
  Mr. President, I see the Senator from Minnesota here. I ask how much 
time we have. We want to try to follow the agreement, which is to work 
through on the agreed time on the amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island has 6 minutes 21 
seconds, the Senator from Kansas has 19 minutes.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I am happy to yield some time to the 
Senator from Minnesota. It is my understanding that Senator Moynihan is 
prepared to offer the next amendment. Senator Grams has an amendment he 
will offer, and then we will stack those three votes. So we will 
complete the debate on this amendment, and that is with the agreement 
of Senator Jeffords and Senator Pell, just to give some indication for 
those who might be wondering what the timing is. I would be happy to 
yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kansas. Five 
minutes would certainly suffice.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to support the Pell-Jeffords 
amendment. I am proud to be an original cosponsor.
  Mr. President, the Minnesota Literacy Council issued a study earlier 
this year, and I quote:

       Minnesota adult basic education has had a profound and 
     multidimensional impact on individual learners and on the 
     quality of life in Minnesota.

  I was a teacher for 20 years, and I have spoken on the floor before 
and I have made the argument, and I think the evidence is irrefutable 
and irreducible--not because I make the argument, but nevertheless I 
think the evidence is very strong--that there is a very strong 
correlation between the education of a mother or a father, or both, and 
certainly whether or not a mother or father are literate, and what they 
can do by way of encouraging their children to learn in school. So, 
this is really, if you will, an important family issue.
  Also, there is a tremendous multiplier effect that comes with adult 
basic education, which is why I thank my colleagues for their effort. 
To the extent a man or woman is literate, he or she not only can do 
better with their children, not only can do better at work, but also 
can more fully participate in the economic and the social and the 
political life of our Nation. In other words, this is critical to a 
functioning democracy.
  Adult basic education programs work. I have seen that in Minnesota, 
over and over and over again, traveling around the State and working 
with people who are in adult education. In 1993, more than 36,000 
people received adult basic education services free of charge at over 
600 sites statewide. Of these, 63 percent obtained a high school 
diploma, GED, gained citizenship, secured employment or job 
advancement, or got off public assistance. So it is enormously 
important in my State.
  Nationally, there was a recent article, and I think I heard the 
Senator from Vermont refer to this, in the Washington Post, which 
reported that about 90 percent of the Fortune 1,000 executives say 
illiteracy is hurting productivity and profitability, and it costs the 
United States, roughly speaking, $225 billion a year in lost 
productivity. So it seems to me this is really very much, if you will, 
a national security issue. It is a national commitment, and that is why 
I support this important focus on adult education.
  As the Senator from Vermont pointed out, my State is ranked as one of 
the best States in terms of literacy rates. According to the Minnesota 
Literacy Council, about 20 percent, however, of Minnesotans, are 
functionally illiterate. According to the 1990 census, in Minnesota 
approximately 18 percent, or 445,000, aged 25 and over, do not have a 
high school diploma. If you add to that those between 18 and 25, the 
number of people without a high school diploma or GED would go up to 
about 560,000. So, again, it seems to me, this amendment is extremely 
important. It puts the focus on the education that is vitally important 
to adults, vitally important to their children, vitally important to 
families, vitally important to democracy, vitally important to job 
productivity, and I would argue in a State that has been the leader in 
the Nation, as my State so often is--if I can say that on the floor of 
the Senate--vitally important to Minnesota.
  I yield the floor and I thank my colleague from Kansas for her 
graciousness.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise as a strong supporter and cosponsor 
of this amendment, which will guarantee that adult education--including 
adult literacy--programs receive adequate funding under the Workforce 
Development Act. Unfortunately, over 50 percent of adults in the United 
States are functionally illiterate, roughly 44 million Americans. 
Illiteracy costs the U.S. economy about $225 billion a year in lost 
productivity. As we improve our worker training programs, we must 
provide adequate funding to combat adult illiteracy.
  In my home State, many dedicated Vermonters are working hard to help 
adults overcome illiteracy and enjoy a more productive and enjoyable 
life. For instance, my sister, Mary Leahy, has devoted herself to 
helping adults with reading and writing problems at Central Vermont 
Adult Basic Education in Barre, VT. Mary, along with many other 
Vermonters, know the deep satisfaction of helping another adult unlock 
his or her potential.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is one of the best 
ways to help our work force and improve the quality of life of millions 
of adults.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I do not know if anyone else wishes to 
be heard. Does the Senator from Vermont wish to speak at this time?
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to clarify where we are 
here, so people understand a little bit better.
  First of all, when we talk about education in this bill, we are not 
just talking about what I was referring to as adult basic education. 
This is where all your money comes from for the so-called Perkins 
programs, the vocational education, the other employment money. That 25 
percent amounts to a little over $1 billion.
  What we are saying is, when you take a look, again, at this chart, 
the bulk of 

[[Page S 14855]]
people on welfare are in the category where they have been on it 2 to 5 
years. These are the ones who are supposed to lose their benefits if 
they do not get adequate education. There is $340 million that would be 
available for them, plus anyone else in that area, to get the basic 
adult education. That would be fine, but the demand is about $1.6 
billion. All we are saying is, for God's sake, at least make sure they 
get the $340 million that is indicated when they need $1.6 billion to 
be able to comply with the purpose of the bill, and welfare, and that 
is get to work. How can you get work if you do not have an education, 
if you have no skill training? So we have $1.6 billion that should be 
out there to get the people off but only $340 million as provided in 
this bill. All this amendment does is say: At least, at least make sure 
they have the $340 million.
  I urge everyone to vote for this amendment just to protect, as best 
they can, really the small amount of money that is available relative 
to the great need in this area.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I hope this amendment will be adopted. Effectively, what this 
amendment is doing is saying that adult education should be a priority 
and a national priority. For all the reasons the Senators from Rhode 
Island and Vermont have expressed here, plus the particular importance 
that this does not just benefit the adult, but also the child, which 
has been verified time in and time out by every single study, I hope 
the amendment will be accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Jeffords-
Pell amendment be set aside for the consideration of the Moynihan 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any 
remaining time on that amendment would be yielded back.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield it back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New York.


                Amendment No. 2887 To Amendment No. 2885

 (Purpose: To strike the provisions repealing training and employment 
   services for trade adjustment assistance, and for other purposes)

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2887 to amendment No. 2885.

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 217, beginning on line 14, strike all through line 
     17.
       On page 217, line 18, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(1)''.
       On page 217, line 20, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(2)''.
       On page 217, line 22, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(3)''.
       On page 217, line 24, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(4)''.
       On page 218, line 1, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(5)''.
       On page 220, beginning on line 1, strike all through page 
     225, line 6.
       On page 225, line 7, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(1)''.
       On page 227, line 8, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(2)''.
       On page 232, line 10, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(3)''.
       On page 232, line 15, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(2)''.
       On page 233, line 1, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(2)''.
       On page 233, line 6, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(2)''.
       On page 233, line 17, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(2)''.
       On page 234, line 6, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(4)''.
       On page 242, lines 11 and 12, strike ``(as amended in 
     paragraph (1)(G)(i) is further amended'' and insert ``is 
     amended''.
       On page 245, line 15, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(1)''.
       On page 260, line 9, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(5)''.

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to make a simple proposal, which 
I deeply wish the Senate will accept and see the reasons for. This 
amendment would simply preserve the Trade Adjustment Assistance 
Program, which has been in place for a third of a century now, having 
been one of the great social inventions, one of those that come along 
from time to time to help a nation, in this case ours, resolve a 
legitimate dispute in which there are legitimate interests on either 
side, in the very best tradition of a democratic society.
  The conflict is elemental. When our Government enters a trade 
agreement with another nation or group of nations, as is increasingly 
the case, it undertakes to lower tariffs on goods coming into our 
country in return for lowered tariffs in other countries--lowered 
restrictions, access to markets, all the different arrangements that go 
into a multilateral world trading system which has emerged so 
exceptionally in the world, and of which we are the preeminent member, 
the largest trading nation in the world.
  Getting to this point was not easy. It took courage, it took 
invention, and it happened here in the U.S. Congress. We have to go 
back to 1930 and the Smoot-Hawley tariff of that year, in which tariffs 
were raised to the highest levels in our history. The understanding was 
that this would protect American jobs.
  Indeed, in the course of the next 2 years from the time it was signed 
by President Hoover, imports dropped by one-third in our Nation. More. 
Alas, so did exports. And the world spun into the disaster of the 
1930's. The British left free trade and went to imperial preferences. 
In Japan, the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was put in place. 
Manchuria was invaded--China, in fact. But we somehow called it 
Manchuria. Unemployment soared.
  In 1933, Mr. President, in Germany, Adolf Hitler came to power in a 
free election. Our Nation tumbled into a depression unlike anything we 
had known. And we had been warned. Mr. President, 1,000 economists--at 
a time when the Nation perhaps was more fortunate then than now and had 
only about 1,000 economists--wrote to President Hoover and said, ``Do 
not do this.'' He did it even so.
  Then in 1934, Cordell Hull, who was Secretary of State, began the 
reciprocal trade agreements program in which we would try to make our 
way by mutual accommodation with other countries. It was a great 
invention. A great man, Harry Hopkins, worked on it. It was to have 
been given an institution as part of the great postwar settlement--the 
World Bank, the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the 
International Trade Organization which was to have been located in 
Havana. But the ITO died in the Senate Finance Committee out of 
lingering fear of opening trade to the rest of the world. But I am 
happy to say in the last Congress it came back alive as the World Trade 
Organization now in place in Geneva as part of that enormous 
achievement, the Uruguay Round.
  How did we get to the point where there was this consensus that we 
had the Kennedy round, the Tokyo round, the Uruguay round, and then the 
free trade agreement with Canada, the North American Free-Trade 
Agreement with Canada and Mexico, and more in prospect? Well, sir, one 
was the manifest benefits that trade had brought this Nation and the 
world.
  But there was also a social invention. It began in 1954, when David 
MacDonald, then President of the United Steelworkers of America, 
proposed that as part of a next trade agreement, if workers were put 
out, if workers lost their jobs because of imports that the Federal 
Government had agreed to in a trade agreement, there would be some 
trade adjustment assistance. There would be training for them. The 
proposition was that, as a matter of public policy, the U.S. Government 
had entered into an agreement in which certain workers were displaced, 
certain workers lost their jobs, and other workers would gain jobs. The 
total would be much to the advantage of all. But there were individuals 
left out, and 

[[Page S 14856]]
it had been the result of a Government policy. Well, then it ought to 
be the practice and policy of the Government to help with a 
readjustment.
  In 1962, as the Trade Expansion Act of that year was under 
consideration, Luther Hodges, then President Kennedy's Secretary of 
Commerce, came before the Senate Finance Committee. He said this.

       Both workers and firms may encounter special difficulties 
     when they feel the adverse effects of import competition. 
     This is import competition caused directly by the Federal 
     Government when it lowers tariffs as part of a trade 
     agreement undertaken for the long-term economic good of the 
     country as a whole. . . . The Federal Government has a 
     special responsibility in this case. When the Government has 
     contributed to economic injuries, it should also contribute 
     to the economic adjustment required to repair them.

  Sir, at that time I had the honor to be an Assistant Secretary of 
Labor. I was Assistant Secretary of Labor for Policy Planning and 
Research. We had done our work on this, sir. We knew what we were 
proposing. I thereupon became one of the three persons who negotiated 
the Long-term Cotton Textile Agreement--still in place in its successor 
form--that helped firms, and saw to it that firms which were losing out 
to international competitors because of a trade agreement--textile 
mills in the Carolinas, garment industries in New York, Chicago, and 
California--were protected, in this case by quotas.
  Also, there was trade adjustment assistance for workers. We put that 
into that legislation, sir. And the American labor movement was solidly 
behind the Trade Expansion Act and the Kennedy round.
  There was social learning going on here; how to protect certain 
vulnerable firms, workers whose jobs had been negotiated away in the 
larger general interest. And so we went from there to the Tokyo round. 
Labor supported the round because it had a commitment to trade 
adjustment. And then we had the free trade agreement with Canada and 
the North American Free-Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico. And 
last year the Uruguay round. And before that, the commitment to trade 
adjustment assistance was crucial in obtaining the necessary support 
for fast track--in which the President brings a trade agreement back 
and sends it up here to the Congress for an up-or-down vote--and for 
NAFTA itself. The Uruguay round came to the Finance Committee in the 
103d Congress when I had the honor to be chairman. And trade adjustment 
assistance was an essential commitment. Labor did not support the North 
American Free-Trade Agreement. I did not in fact support it. But we did 
not stop it, and we could have done so, and would have done so if there 
had been no trade adjustment assistance.
  Mr. President, in the years just since 1975, to give you a sense of 
the dimension we are talking about here, 2 million workers have 
received trade adjustment assistance benefits as their right, as the 
public interest demands. The assistance is part of the trade expansion 
activity of the Federal Government. Tariffs and trade agreements, 
those, sir, have always been located in the Committee on Finance. The 
Committee on Finance has very carefully--not always successfully but I 
think with an ever assiduous effort--tried to see that trade adjustment 
assistance is maintained. You get trade adjustment assistance when it 
can be shown that tariff agreements have closed down an industry at the 
cost of the workers and management--2 million workers since 1975.

  It would be such a great loss--turning our backs on generations of 
experience and learning the hard way--to give this up now. I do not 
think we want to do this to American workers. We made a commitment. 
Pacta sunt servanda, agreements must be kept. These are agreements at 
the highest level of Government. And they have been so enormously 
effective.
  But, sir, I say to the Senate, I say to anyone listening outside the 
Senate, strip trade adjustment assistance from the trade laws and you 
will never see a trade agreement again in this time. For the men and 
women, the working people who will have seen a pledge to them broken, a 
commitment negotiated by their own leaders broken, the trust will not 
be there again. It is sufficiently eroded as is.
  We know very well how difficult the last 10 years have been in this 
area, and we see troubles coming ahead of us. We do not need them. We 
worked out an arrangement which got by as--which I think is a fair 
statement--a social invention of very considerable measure.
  And so, Mr. President, it fell to the distinguished chairman of our 
committee, Senator Roth, and I to write to our very good friends, in 
whom we have the deepest respect, the chairman of the Committee on 
Labor and Human Resources and the ranking member, who are here today. 
On October 5, Senator Roth and I wrote to say that the Committee on 
Finance has not had an opportunity to consider this matter, the folding 
in and thereby elimination of trade adjustment assistance, and the 
NAFTA transitional adjustment assistance program. These are programs 
under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Finance, and we respectfully 
asked they be removed from the Workforce Development Act, a remarkable 
bipartisan achievement, with the changes we would like to make, as, for 
example, those suggested by Mr. Pell and Mr. Jeffords.
  Now I offer this amendment, and I would hope it might be accepted. It 
will ensure great harmony in this measure if it is accepted and 
disharmony if it is not. It will break with 33 years of legislation, 
break with three generations of learning and working together in the 
area of trade which has proved of such enormous benefit to the United 
States, and it would put in jeopardy, put a cloud over our prospects of 
continuing in that tradition.
  Mr. President, I do not speak longer than necessary if there are 
other Senators who wish to speak.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I see my friend from Minnesota present.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Five minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from 
Massachusetts for his graciousness.
  Mr. President, while I agree with the underlying premise of this job 
training bill to consolidate and streamline--and I simply say to the 
Senator from Kansas and the Senator from Massachusetts, I deeply 
appreciate this bipartisan effort--I believe that repealing key 
elements of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program in the process, as 
this bill does, is a serious mistake.
  Mr. President, from January 1, 1993, to August 31 of this year, more 
than 2,300 Minnesota workers have received TAA. That assistance has 
taken the form of about $4.5 million in training funds--job search and 
educational assistance--and about $6.8 million in income support.
  Let me just be very direct about it. I did not support NAFTA even 
with the TAA as a part of it. I opposed NAFTA and GATT, and the view I 
took then and the view I take now is it is far better to raise wages 
and living standards and environmental protection through international 
agreements than depress those standards.
  I argued that GATT and NAFTA failed to meet these tests, and many of 
my predictions about NAFTA's adverse impact on American workers have 
come to pass. American jobs have been shipped to Mexico and workers 
have been left to fend for themselves.
  This bill in present form without this amendment--and, Mr. President, 
I ask unanimous consent to be an original cosponsor of this amendment--
--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Would exacerbate the problem. It is sometimes 
necessary to remind ourselves of promises made. Proponents of NAFTA, 
for example, promised it would boost exports to Mexico and create 
hundreds of thousands of new American jobs almost immediately.
  Instead, 21 months after implementation of NAFTA, our trade balance 
with Mexico has dramatically worsened. Our trade deficit with Mexico 
for the first 6 months of this year was $8.5 billion. Furthermore, 
according to the Department of Labor, 42,000 Americans are certified to 
have lost their jobs as a result of NAFTA. And as an article in 
yesterday's New York Times observed, 

[[Page S 14857]]
this number is undoubtedly lower than the actual numbers of jobs lost 
to NAFTA--that is, for a variety of reasons, not all workers eligible 
did apply.
  What about the American companies that assured us during the NAFTA 
debate that many new American jobs would be created by the agreement? 
Public Citizen conducted a useful survey of a number of these firms. 
Public Citizen's report found that of 66 firms which had made explicit 
job-creating promises or projections and which replied to Public 
Citizen's inquiries, 89 percent reported making no significant progress 
toward meeting these projections.
  Twenty months after NAFTA, Public Citizen also was able to contact 
five companies from my State of Minnesota. Officials from each one of 
these companies had made explicit projections or promises of economic 
benefits to Minnesotans from NAFTA. Unfortunately, after 20 months of 
NAFTA, none could report creating new jobs in Minnesota or even 
increased exports from Minnesota as a result of the agreement.
  It seems to me a promise is a promise, and we must live up to our 
commitment. I think NAFTA was a profound mistake. I think GATT was a 
profound mistake. But the TAA as a part of NAFTA was supposed to help 
those workers gain new skills and obtain new jobs in the local 
economies because these workers are the ones who are rocked by some of 
these agreements and some of what has happened in the global economy.
  The increasing globalization of our economy makes a lot of U.S. 
workers feel that the forces that directly affect our standard of 
living and the quality of our lives are moving further and further from 
our control and from accountability to us. It seems that local, State 
and national governments are increasingly powerless to solve our most 
pressing problems. And I am afraid that this trend only makes citizens 
more alienated from and distrustful of their governments.
   Without this amendment, this bill would heighten this sense of 
alienation from their government that American workers feel. Repealing 
TAA would betray the commitments we made here in Congress to provide 
even modest job retraining and other benefits to sustain dislocated 
workers through a difficult transition period to another job. Even the 
House version of the job training bill which recently passed did not 
repeal TAA.


             The Importance of Trade Adjustment Assistance

  Let me describe why I think this job retraining funding commitment is 
so important, and how it works in practical terms.
  Under the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program [TAA] and the special 
NAFTA/TAA program enacted when NAFTA was passed 2 years ago, workers 
who meet certain eligibility requirements and are certified as having 
lost their jobs because of competition from imported goods are eligible 
for special assistance. This assistance includes:
  First, income support consisting of up to 52 weeks of extended 
unemployment benefits beyond the 26 weeks a worker would normally be 
entitled to under most State unemployment laws; and second, employment 
and retraining services;
   The income support portion of these programs is an entitlement. A 
worker who meets the eligibility requirements is entitled to the 
extended unemployment benefits, provided that the worker is enrolled in 
training.
  Employment and training services are provided through a capped 
entitlement--that is, funds are appropriated for these services, and 
eligible workers are entitled to receive them as long as funds are 
available.
  This bill repeals the sections of TAA and the NAFTA/TAA program that 
give eligible workers a capped entitlement to employment and training 
services. Eliminating the entitlement to these services means that 
these workers will have to compete with all other job seekers for 
whatever employment and training services may be available in their 
State.
  At the same time, the bill substantially cuts Federal job training 
programs overall, thereby prompting an intense competition for 
diminishing funding among the various groups of workers who need to be 
retrained--whatever the reason for their displacement.
  Repealing these provisions fundamentally breaks faith with a 
commitment first made by President Kennedy in the Trade Expansion Act 
1962--and renewed again when Congress passed the NAFTA/TAA program--
that workers adversely affected by our trade policies would receive 
special assistance from the Government to find new employment.
  Mr. President, since the TAA program was established, Democrats and 
Republicans alike have recognized our special responsibility to workers 
who lose the jobs as a direct result of Government trade policies. The 
Senate reaffirmed its commitment to honor that responsibility when it 
enacted the NAFTA/TAA program for workers displaced because of 
increased imports or shifts in production to Mexico and Canada. We must 
not renege on that commitment now.
  Even under the current JTPA Dislocated Worker Program, there is not 
enough money to serve more than about 25 percent of eligible workers. 
Under the Kassebaum bill, there is no requirement that a State spend 
any particular portion of the Federal funds it receives to serve 
dislocated workers.
  Moreover, while States are required to offer job search and job 
placement services through their one-stop centers, there is no 
requirement in the bill that States actually provide job training to 
anyone. If trade-impacted workers are no longer entitled to employment 
and training services, there is a good chance that in some States many 
will not get them. They will be out of luck.
  This amendment preserves the employment and training portions of the 
TAA and NAFTA/TAA programs as a capped entitlement. This is part of a 
social contract that we made with working men and women when we asked 
them to support our efforts to open world markets and eliminate trade 
barriers. I believe we have an obligation to honor that contract.
  At the Labor and Human Resources Committee markup on this bill, 
Senator Kennedy offered an amendment similar to this one which 
preserved the right of trade-impacted workers to obtain retraining 
services, but required that all such services be provided through the 
same systems established by the State to serve other dislocated 
workers. Unfortunately, this amendment was defeated on a tie 8-to-8 
vote. I hope that we will get a different result on this vote. American 
workers deserve better.
  So I thank the Senator from New York for his amendment. I thank the 
Senator from Delaware. I thank him for their leadership. I am proud to 
be an original cosponsor, if that is appropriate, and I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, in general, I believe that our 
country must improve our Federal job training programs to reduce 
fragmentation and increase efficiency. I also firmly believe that we 
should maintain our longstanding commitments to workers who are 
dislocated by Federal trade policy.
  Two programs under the Finance Committee provide assurances that 
workers who are dislocated because of Federal trade policies will get 
retraining and support--the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act [TAA] and 
NAFTA-TAA.
  In my view, these programs are fundamental commitments made to 
workers during trade negotiations. Many West Virginia workers have 
relied on TAA benefits in the past. In fact, since 1990, 1,673 West 
Virginians qualified for TAA benefits and got retraining and income 
support needed to rebuild their lives and find new jobs or careers 
after being dislocated. For these families, TAA offered hope and a 
second chance.
  TAA means a great deal to workers in small towns that are hit with 
major plant closings. For example, when Hanover Shoes in Marlinton, WV, 
closed because of shoe imports, 231 West Virginia workers needed and 
got assistance thanks to TAA. Similar dislocations have occurred in 
Franklin, Bartow, Parsons, Martinsburg, and other communities because 
of the decline in shoe manufacturing and textiles in this country. Many 
of these workers have spent 10 years or more working in one factory, so 
it takes time and support to learn new skills. Similar disruptions 
occur in the oil, natural gas, and coal industry. West 

[[Page S 14858]]
Virginia workers want to get new jobs and new careers, but retraining 
is often essential to help make a shift from an industry like textiles 
into another field.
  Because of my concerns for dislocated workers in West Virginia and my 
longstanding support for TAA, I am strongly supporting Senator 
Moynihan's amendment to strike the language repealing the TAA and 
NAFTA-TAA programs. We should not renege on this basic commitment to 
workers, especially at a time when we are just beginning to see plant 
closings and dislocations from NAFTA.
  Personally, I believe that we do have a special obligation to workers 
who are dislocated by general trade policy or trade treaties like the 
North American Free-Trade Agreement--Federal decisions that we make 
knowing they may jeopardize jobs in particular industries or regions.
  There is no doubt in my mind that more West Virginians will need 
retraining and benefits to cope with the dislocations created by trade 
policy, by NAFTA, and also because of the implementation of the Clean 
Air Act.
  I believe passing the Moynihan amendment to strike language repealing 
TAA and NAFTA-TAA is essential, and I want to ensure that the new 
streamlined approach suggested by the Workforce Development Act will 
provide the help and training that West Virginia workers need, and 
deserve.
  I strongly hope that the Moynihan amendment and other amendments will 
be adopted today to improve this legislation, and I expect that I will 
be supporting many of them.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment by 
the distinguished Senator from New York. This amendment preserves trade 
adjustment assistance--job training and job placement help for workers 
who have lost their jobs as a direct consequence of U.S. trade 
policies.
  We here in Congress pass the laws that put out Nation's trade 
policies into effect--the policies that are negotiated by Presidents 
with our trading partners. We have the responsibility to assure that 
those trade policies benefit all Americans.
  Now, Mr. President, at times I have supported expanded trade as one 
of the ways to promote our Nation's economic interests. I am convinced 
that we must open the markets for American products and services around 
the world. Those new markets are our best hope for a growing economy 
with growing incomes and expanded job opportunities.
  I believe that without expanding world markets we will end up 
fighting over a stagnant or shrinking economy. But at the same time, 
there is no automatic guarantee that growth will benefit all 
Americans--in fact, economists will tell us that there will be losses 
as well as gains as jobs shift from low-growth to high-growth 
industries.
  That is why we must have the ability to help those who will pay part 
of the price for progress--those whose job loss can be traced to 
changes in our trade policies. That is why we must preserve the trade 
adjustment assistance training programs.
  These are men and women who have played by the rules--who have worked 
by the rules, Mr. President--and who, through no fault of their own, 
find their work is no longer needed. They have raised their families, 
built our neighborhoods and cities--they have done all a country can 
ask of them, and more.
  But today, these men and women can find that their job security is 
dependent on trade policy made here in Washington. Our decisions to 
participate in trade agreements can expose their industries to 
increased international competition. How can we turn our backs on their 
plight?
  Trade adjustment assistance not only helps these people deal with the 
transitions that are increasingly part of our rapidly changing 
international economy. This assistance makes good economic sense 
because it lowers the costs of economic adjustments--costs in wasted 
hours of unemployment and underemployment, in depressed communities, 
towns, and regions. By helping to move workers displaced by trade into 
new jobs faster, into jobs that best fit their skills and work 
experience, we reduce the costs of economic adjustment and increase the 
benefits for everyone.
  I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this amendment. It 
is the fair thing for us to do, it is the responsible thing for us to 
do, and it makes good economic sense.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Just 30 seconds, if I may, sir, I ask my friend from 
Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes and 50 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I would like to put a table in the Record, a cumulative 
program activity record from the last 20 years to show--this is a 
carefully administered program--of 2,011,268 workers certified for the 
program, 2,032,507 were denied.
  This is carefully administered and successful and ought to be 
continued.
  I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                       CUMULATIVE PROGRAM ACTIVITY                      
                  [April 3, 1975 Through June 30, 1995]                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Cases      Workers 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cases Instituted................................      31,183   4,240,496
Certified.......................................      11,494   2,011,268
Partially Certified.............................         416     104,824
Denied..........................................      17,594   2,032,507
Terminated/Withdrawn............................       1,576      91,897
In Process......................................         103         N/A
Completed.......................................      31,080  4,2450,496
                                                                        
                       JUNE, 1995 PROGRAM ACTIVITY                      
                                                                        
Instituted......................................          94       2,732
Certified.......................................          81       7,628
Part. Certified.................................           0           0
Denied..........................................          27       2,694
Terminated/Withdrawn............................           9           2
Completed.......................................         117      10,324
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains on the Moynihan amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 4 minutes, 
and the Senator from Kansas has the other 22 minutes 32 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself my time remaining on the amendment.
  Mr. President, I welcome the opportunity to be a cosponsor with the 
Senator from New York, Senator Moynihan, on this amendment. He has made 
the case for this amendment very powerfully. Effectively, what we are 
saying is that for the past 30 years it has been a matter of national 
policy for Republicans and Democrats alike that, if we were going to 
enter into various trade agreements as a direct result of which 
individual workers were going to lose their jobs, those workers would 
be entitled to retraining and income support in the form of extended 
unemployment benefits so that they can continue to support their 
families while they are being retrained. The income support amounts to 
up to a year, rather than 6 months, of extended unemployment benefits. 
That is what is basically the outline of the Trade Adjustment 
Assistance Program.
  And the concept behind that, Mr. President, was that as a result of 
expanded trade, the economy as a whole was going to benefit, Americans 
were going to benefit in all parts of the country. But some workers in 
some industries were also going to lose their jobs, and we recognize a 
special responsibility to those workers--in many instances workers who 
had worked a lifetime at a particular job--and ensure that those 
workers would be able to get training and financial support during that 
period of the training for up to 1 year.
  Now, what have the results been, Mr. President? The fact is, that 
individuals have lost their jobs as a result of increased imports and 
plant relocations stemming from trade agreements like GATT and NAFTA. 
These are men and women who want to work, who can work, and the only 
reason they are not working is because a decision has been made that is 
in the national interest, passed by the Congress and the Senate, which 
results in their dislocation. These individuals' lives are disrupted. 
But under the TAA and NAFTA-TAA programs, they are able to get into 
training programs and are able to get some supplemental assistance. And 
then they are able to try and generally are able to get back into 
employment. 

[[Page S 14859]]

  Now, what does the pending legislation say? It says that in spite of 
the assurances that were given by Members of Congress, Republicans and 
Democrats alike at the time we approved NAFTA and the GATT, that these 
programs would be available for them, that we had a broad bipartisan 
agreement to support--in spite of those assurances, this bill now says 
that if an individual is dislocated, there is no guarantee that there 
will be a training program there. And if there is no training program 
there, then there are no extended unemployment benefits. These 
individuals will no longer get any priority for assistance.
  Now, Mr. President, I think this is basically going back on the 
solemn commitments that were made during the debate on NAFTA and on 
GATT. The Senator from New York mentioned a number of those.
  Let's look at what was said about TAA by Members of Congress and the 
administration when we were debating whether to enter into the NAFTA.
  On May 1, 1991, in a letter to congressional leaders requesting an 
extension of fast-track authority to negotiate the NAFTA, President 
Bush wrote as follows:

       [W]hile economic studies show that a free trade agreement 
     would create jobs and promote growth in the United States, I 
     know there is concern about adjustment in some sectors. these 
     concerns will be addressed through provisions in the NAFTA 
     designed to ease the transition for import-sensitive 
     industries. In addition, my Administration is committed to 
     working with the Congress to ensure that there is adequate 
     assistance and effective retraining for dislocated workers.

  At a question-and-answer session with business editors and writers on 
that same day, May 1, 1991, President Bush said again:

       I know that there's a concern--not just on Capitol Hill but 
     in many of the labor halls around this country--about job 
     loss. And our negotiators will address these concerns in 
     provisions of the North American Free-Trade Agreement. We 
     will work with Congress to see that dislocated workers 
     receive proper assistance and retraining. We believe we have 
     the answers to the questions that are being raised by the 
     labor unions and by some on Capitol Hill.

  On May 7, 1991, at a Finance Committee hearing on United States-
Mexico trade, Secretary of Labor Lynn Martin repeated that commitment. 
She testified that:

       The President and I are both committed to working with the 
     Congress to be sure there will be adequate assistance for 
     effective retraining of any dislocated American workers. . . 
     . The President is determined to assure the timely 
     availability of comprehensive services to United States 
     workers who might conceivably be displaced over a period of 
     time as a result of such a trade agreement.

  Carla Hills, then the U.S. Trade Representative, acknowledged at that 
same hearing that:

       Studies also show, and experience would indicate, that some 
     sectors might face increased competitive pressure. In a broad 
     sense, society benefits when we focus our jobs and our 
     capital in sectors where we are most productive. But we 
     should not and will not forget that the transition to a new 
     job can be difficult for individual workers and communities. 
     Not every worker will keep his or her job once a NAFTA is 
     negotiated. . . . [W]e cannot ignore the impact that the loss 
     of a job has on the individual affected. . . . [W]e have a 
     responsibility to be ready to assist any dislocated workers 
     affected by the NAFTA who face adjustment difficulties. 
     Effective retraining and adjustment programs can facilitate 
     adaptation to ongoing shifts in our economy.
       [T]he Administration is firmly committed to working with 
     the Congress to ensure an effective, adequately funded worker 
     adjustment program. . . . Any needed changes in U.S. law 
     should be in place by the time the NAFTA enters into force 
     and could appropriately be addressed in legislation 
     implementing the NAFTA.

  The importance of that commitment in persuading Members on both sides 
of the aisle to support the NAFTA agreement cannot be overstated.
  During the Finance Committee hearings, Senator Bentsen, then the 
chairman of the committee, stressed the origins of trade adjustment 
assistance, noting that:

       It was President Kennedy who first proposed trade 
     adjustment assistance when he launched a new round of global 
     talks back in 1962. President Kennedy favored free trade 
     because he knew it would benefit the United States as a 
     whole; that, as competitive as we are, we would come out a 
     net winner.
       But he also understood that a country had to do something 
     for those who suffer in the move to open competition, and he 
     saw trade adjustment assistance as an essential part of that 
     trade policy. Adjustment assistance is just as much an 
     essential part of our trade policy today as it was 30 years 
     ago.
       That is why, when I was working to extend the fast track, I 
     stressed to [President Bush] that we needed a firm commitment 
     from the administration to work with the committee and the 
     Congress on an effective program to work with the committee 
     and the Congress on an effective program to meet the 
     challenge of a Mexican agreement.
       We got a promise and an action plan from the President in 
     May of 1991. That commitment was important to winning 
     congressional approval of the fast track.

  Senator Packwood, then the ranking Republican on the Finance 
Committee, agreed with Senator Bentsen that a commitment to trade 
adjustment assistance for workers who lost their jobs was an integral 
reason why Congress agreed to the fast-track authorization. He stated:

       I agree with the chairman that NAFTA will rise or fall on 
     whether or not there is a good retraining act. Without it, I 
     do not see any possibility that NAFTA will pass.

  Senator Roth, who is now the chairman of the Finance Committee and 
who has long been a champion of the TAA Program, also stressed how 
important worker adjustment assistance was to approval of the NAFTA. He 
stated:

       While many of us have made a final decision on whether to 
     support NAFTA . . . there is one thing on which we can all 
     agree, and that is the need to help dislocated workers make 
     the difficult but necessary transition to new jobs. . . . An 
     effective worker adjustment program must go hand in hand with 
     NAFTA.

  Senator Baucus, also a member of the Finance Committee, stated:

       I think I speak for many Senators when I say that I will 
     not vote for the NAFTA until a fully-funded worker retraining 
     program is in place.

  Mr. President, all we are saying is that we all support the 
consolidation of training programs. And the Senator from Kansas has 
done an extraordinary job in being able to do that. But we have a 
solemn responsibility to those workers who have lost or will lose their 
jobs because of NAFTA or GATT. I will not take the time to spell out a 
profile of who these workers are. But they are men and women who are 
proud Americans, and who have suffered as a result of the action of 
Congress. I think we can do no less than meet our responsibilities to 
them as has been outlined by the Presidents and the leaders of the 
Congress when we passed those particular treaties.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, if I may put a little different 
perspective on this issue, recognizing, as has been eloquently stated 
by the Senator from New York, Senator Moynihan, and the ranking member 
of the Labor Committee, that there has been, through both Republican 
and Democratic administrations, a commitment regarding trade adjustment 
assistance.
  But let me make clear how the TAA is handled in the work force 
development bill. While the training part of the trade adjustment 
assistance is consolidated into the bill, the entitlement to income 
support for dislocated workers under TAA is not repealed. This, of 
course, is something that remains under the Finance Committee. This 
means our commitment to workers who lose their jobs because of a trade 
agreement is maintained, it is not eliminated. That is why I believe S. 
143 is important in the context of helping all workers. Workers who may 
have been affected by any trade agreement will still receive the 
assistance for job training but, I suggest, in a far more effective 
way.
  It makes no sense to keep separate and distinct programs for workers 
who are laid off for one reason or another. All workers who lose their 
jobs should have access to job training. All workers who need 
assistance should be able to enter the system with the kind of quality 
assistance that is their due. Dislocated workers who need good training 
linked to real jobs have been ill-served by existing programs, 
including TAA. We must reform these programs and establish a 
comprehensive system that is based on accountability for putting people 
into real jobs. I think the Senator from New York would be certainly 
one who would agree with that goal as I know the Senator from 
Massachusetts does as well.
  Secretary of Labor Reich has pointed out that under the current 
program when a plant closes, one group of workers may be eligible for 
training while others on a different assembly line are 

[[Page S 14860]]
not. This makes no sense. How do you know whether somebody has lost 
work at Cessna Aircraft because of NAFTA or because of structural 
related cutbacks? We need to move to a single integrated job training 
system and not single out a particular group for special training 
programs. That is, as I suggested before, how we end up with the maze 
of programs that we have here today.
  I believe that Governors and local elected officials will be 
responsive to the training needs of all their citizens and in 
particular to those who are laid off and have lost their jobs.
  Anyone who is mindful of the concerns in their State will be putting 
those people first and foremost in wanting to offer the very best 
program.
  Mr. President, I would like for a moment to comment on the General 
Accounting Office's report on the Trade Adjustment Assistance Job 
Training Program. It stated that it believes the TAA Program is 
seriously flawed. The GAO has testified that its study, as well as 
those of the Department of Labor Inspector General and a study 
commissioned by the Department of Labor, concluded that the TAA Program 
falls short in assisting dislocated workers to enter the work force.
  I would like to list a few of the findings: TAA benefits are not 
equally available to all available workers as a result of the flawed 
certification process; and the TAA Program is often slow in reaching 
workers as a result of this complex certification process. I think 
there is a recognition that some of this does need to be improved. The 
TAA recipients do not receive services tailored to their needs because 
only a limited mix of services are provided. TAA lacks the ongoing 
counseling and support necessary to ensure completion of training. The 
liberal use of waivers has resulted in as many as half of TAA 
recipients not even participating in training. It rarely works with 
participants after they finish training to help them find jobs, and TAA 
does not have an effective accountability system in place.
  The GAO has also pointed out that the existence of ``several other 
targeted dislocated worker programs,'' in addition to the Trade 
Adjustment Assistance Program, suggesting that the United States 
overall approach to dislocated worker assistance needs reform.
  The GAO followup study of the NAFTA-TAA Program last year indicated 
that many of the shortcomings of the existing TAA Program had not been 
addressed.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I 
believe that the protection in the entitlement that exists still with 
the Finance Committee for financial support is protected and continues. 
At the same time the job training portion would be included in, I 
think, a much superior system so that everybody can be helped and 
assisted in a comprehensive way.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Just in response to the Senator from Kansas, the concerns described 
in the GAO study which have been outlined in terms of criticisms of the 
way the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program was administered under 
previous administrations are in the process of being remedied under the 
present administration.
  What we have seen under Secretary Reich is a vigorous effort to try 
and deal with some of the points that have been raised in the General 
Accounting Office report. We stand ready to make sure that any other 
problems which are brought to our attention are addressed.
  Let me just say this, Mr. President. We are not saying that you have 
to have a separate training program for trade-impacted workers. We 
support the consolidation of training programs. We are not saying 
maintain a separate training program for those who fall under this 
particular category. We offered an amendment in committee to require 
that States provide training and employment services to workers 
eligible for TAA and NAFTA-TAA through the same programs established by 
the State to serve other dislocated workers. What we wanted to 
preserve, we said, was the guarantee that trade-impacted workers who 
needed retraining would actually receive training, which is something 
we have under the TAA and NAFTA-TAA programs which we do not provide to 
other dislocated workers. But my amendment was rejected in committee.
  We are saying, all we want to do is make sure that these workers' 
rights to retraining are going to be protected as they were guaranteed 
by previous administrations, Republicans and Democrats alike. And we 
support providing that training through consolidated training programs. 
All we are saying is that these workers should be included in the same 
programs, but their rights to participate should be preserved. They, in 
effect, get a right to retraining if they qualify, and if they are in 
training, they can receive extended unemployment benefits so that they 
can continue to pay their bills and support their families while they 
are in training. Under the law, if they are not in training they are 
not able to receive the income support benefits.
  At the present time, these workers have certain rights that were 
guaranteed by Presidents and Congress when we approved GATT and NAFTA, 
and we are saying continue those rights under the consolidated training 
programs. That is basically what we are asking for.
  Mr. President, I yield back whatever time we have.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I do not know if the Senator from New 
York wishes to make any further comment.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I would simply like to thank the 
chairperson for her courtesy and clarity. I do make the point, however, 
that the future of trade agreements in this country would be diminished 
if this authority does not remain in the committee that is required to 
approve the trade agreements themselves.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I now call on the Senator from 
Minnesota. I ask unanimous consent, first, to set aside the Moynihan 
amendment for a brief presentation of an amendment that has been agreed 
to by both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I yield to Senator Grams.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.


                Amendment No. 2888 to Amendment No. 2885

        (Purpose: To enable States to develop integrated plans)

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment and send it to 
the desk for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Grams] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2888 to amendment No. 2885.

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 30, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
       (5) State option for integrated plan.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of this subsection, with the express written 
     agreement of the Governor, the State educational agency, the 
     State postsecondary education agency, and representatives of 
     vocational education and community colleges, of a State, the 
     Governor may develop all parts of the State plan, using 
     procedures that are consistent with the procedures described 
     in subsection (d). Nothing in this section shall be construed 
     to require a Governor who develops an integrated State plan 
     under this paragraph to duplicate any information contained 
     in 1 part of the plan in another part of the plan.
       Beginning on page 114, strike line 15 and all that follows 
     through page 115, line 13, and insert the following:
       (1) Failure to demonstrate sufficient progress.--
       (A) Finding.--If the Federal Partnership determines, after 
     notice and an opportunity for a hearing, that a State has 
     failed to demonstrate sufficient progress toward reaching the 
     State benchmarks established under section 121(c) for the 3 
     years covered by a State plan described in section 104, the 
     Federal Partnership shall--

[[Page S 14861]]

       (i) make a finding regarding whether the failure is 
     attributable to the workforce employment activities, or 
     workforce education activities, of the State; and
       (ii) provide advice to the Secretary of Labor and the 
     Secretary of Education.
       (B) Reductions.--
       (i) Failure attributable to both categories.--Except as 
     provided in subparagraph (C), if the Federal Partnership 
     finds that the failure referred to in subparagraph (A) is 
     attributable to both categories referred to in subparagraph 
     (A)(i), the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of 
     Education, acting jointly on the advice of the Federal 
     Partnership, may reduce the allotment of the State under 
     section 102 by not more than 10 percent per program year for 
     not more than 3 years.
       (ii) Failure attributable to one category.--Unless the 
     Governor of the State has developed an integrated State plan 
     under section 104(b)(5), if the Federal Partnership finds 
     that the failure referred to in subparagraph (A) is 
     attributable to 1 category of activities referred to in 
     subparagraph (A)(i) but not to the remaining category, the 
     Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education, acting 
     jointly on the advice of the Federal Partnership, may decide 
     to reduce only the portion of the allotment for the category 
     of activities to which the failure is attributable.
       (C) Combination and reduction.--Notwithstanding sections 
     103 and 111, if the Federal Partnership finds that the 
     Governor of the State has developed an integrated State plan 
     under section 104(b)(5), and the failure referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) is attributable to 1 category of activities 
     referred to in subparagraph (A)(i) but not to the remaining 
     category, the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of 
     Education, acting jointly on the advice of the Federal 
     Partnership, in lieu of making a reduction under subparagraph 
     (B), shall--
       (i) reduce the portion of the allotment for the category of 
     activities to which the failure is attributable by a 
     percentage determined by the Secretaries, but not to exceed 5 
     percent of such portion, for a period determined by the 
     Secretaries;
       (ii) require the State to combine, for such period--
       (I) an additional percentage, equal to the percentage 
     determined under clause (i), of the funds made available 
     through such portion; and
       (II) the funds made available to the State under this 
     subtitle for the remaining category; and
       (iii) require the State to expend the combined funds in 
     accordance with the strategic plan of the State referred to 
     in section 104(b)(2) to carry out the remaining category of 
     activities.
       (D) Construction.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this title, funds referred to in subparagraph (C)(ii)(I) that 
     are combined under subparagraph (C) shall be considered--
       (i) to be made available under section 103(a)(1) if the 
     combined funds are required to be expended for workforce 
     employment activities; and
       (ii) to be made available under section 103(a)(2) if the 
     combined funds are required to be expended for workforce 
     education activities.

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, the Federal job training system, as we 
know, is broken. The current patchwork of 163 programs is failing to 
give us the results we need as a Nation to compete in a worldwide 
economy. Furthermore, we can no longer afford the $25 billion it costs 
American taxpayers each year.
  To improve results, the legislation before us will send one block 
grant to the States allowing each State to invest this money in the 
most efficient and effective employment programs. But with those 
dollars comes responsibilities. States would be accountable for how 
that money is spent. The State must be able to show how it meets or 
exceeds several specific performance standards. Such standards include 
increasing the number of job placements, increasing the length of time 
participants stay employed and increasing participant earnings.
  While these are noble goals, as it currently stands, S. 143 requires 
the plan to be developed into three distinct parts: The strategic plan, 
the work force education plan, and the work force employment plan.
  It also requires the block grant to be set aside into three separate 
pots of money: 25 percent for the Governor; 25 percent for the State 
education agency; and 50 percent for a flex account which is jointly 
administered by a broad-based group of State officials and private 
sector individuals.
  After consulting with officials in my home State of Minnesota, it is 
clear that Minnesotans strongly support this bill, and they are anxious 
to assume the duty of training and placing of Minnesota workers.
  However, Minnesota wants to go one step further and coordinate its 
efforts for education and training. Under the current bill, Minnesota 
and every other State would be required to create three separate plans 
covering education and training. My amendment would provide States with 
a choice.
  I understand there are occasions when separate efforts may be 
desired. However, the Federal Government should not stand in the way of 
States wishing to coordinate those efforts. A State should be allowed 
to implement a work force State development strategy without divided 
State plans. If the Governor and State education agency can both agree 
to work through a collaborative State partnership, they should be 
allowed to. My amendment would give States that option.
  By allowing States to form a collaborative effort in planning both 
sides of the block grant, States like Minnesota will be able to save 
time and resources, as well as to maximize the benefits to its workers.
  My amendment requires the consent of the Governor, the State 
education agency, the State postsecondary agency, and representatives 
of vocational education and community colleges before the option to 
integrate into one State plan can be implemented.
  My amendment also ensures that work force education and work force 
employment activities are integrated to the greatest extent possible 
within the constraints of State laws regarding educational authority.
  It gives the State the option, again, only if the Governor and the 
State election officials agree, to integrate State planning for the 
block grant by using the collaborative effort.
  The State will be allowed to develop one strategic plan tailored to 
the needs of the State to develop all areas that are required under the 
bill.
  Most important, my amendment unifies State accountability for program 
performance by placing the responsibility for setting State performance 
indicators by all parts of the block grant with the same collaborative 
process that develops the State goals and benchmarks.
  Lastly, State accountability is strengthened under this amendment.
  If a Federal partnership finds that a State which has exercised its 
option to integrate has failed to make progress toward work force 
employment or educational goals, it may recommend a sanction of up to 
10 percent from the State's block grant.
  However, for States that do not exercise the integrated option, the 
Federal partnership can sanction the part of the plan that does not 
meet the benchmarks, up to 10 percent.
  Under this scenario, only one-half of the sanction will return to the 
Federal partnership; the other half will remain in the State but will 
be transferred to the administrator of the programs that are meeting 
those goals.
  Mr. President, in conclusion, this amendment will ensure that States 
have the option to put forth the most efficient strategy for 
implementing its block grant.
  My amendment protects State education agency authority by expressly 
requiring agreement between all of the parties before exercising the 
option. It also maintains strict sanctions for States that do not meet 
those benchmarks.
  Furthermore, my amendment has the strong support of Minnesota Gov. 
Arne Carlson, the National Governors' Association, and the Republican 
Governors' Association Workforce Development Task Force.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the 
National Governors' Association outlining that support be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                              National Governors' Association,

                                                 October 10, 1995.
     Hon. Rod Grams,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Dirksen 261, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Grams: It is our understanding that during 
     consideration of the Workforce Development Act, you plan to 
     offer an amendment that would provide states with additional 
     flexibility to submit a unified state workforce development 
     plan. NGA is strongly supportive of these efforts.
       As I understand it, your amendment does two things. First 
     of all, it would provide states with the option, if the 
     Governor and the State Education Agency agree, of unifying 
     policymaking authority for all of the block grant funds by 
     using the state's collaborative process for the strategic 
     plan to develop all parts of the state plan. This state 
     option would address in part NGA's concerns 

[[Page S 14862]]
     that the bill would prohibit states from developing a fully integrated 
     workforce development system because it fragments planning 
     and implementation authority for the block grant. Your 
     amendment would provide states with this important 
     flexibility while also protecting the legal authority of the 
     state education agency (SEA) by requiring the explicit 
     consent of the SEA before the state can exercise this option. 
     The NGA applauds your efforts to remove barriers that stand 
     in the way of states creating a single unified workforce 
     development system.
       We thank you for your efforts to provide states with 
     greater flexibility and look forward to preserving this 
     provision during the conference process.
           Sincerely,
     Gov. Arne H. Carlson,
       Chair, Human Resources Committee.
     Gov. Tom Carper,
       Vice Chair, Human Resources Committee.

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, the task force includes Governor Thompson 
of Wisconsin, Governor Engler of Michigan, Governor Branstad of Iowa, 
Governor Voinovich of Ohio, and Governor Whitman of New Jersey.
  In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I would like to say that I am very 
appreciative of the Senator from Minnesota and the initiative he has 
undertaken on his amendment. I believe it strengthens our bill. I 
appreciate his willingness to work with us to craft a provision that 
streamlines the planning process for some States while maintaining 
important jurisdictional protections.
  I think this is a very worthy addition.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that votes now 
occur, first, on the Pell-Jeffords amendment, second, on the Moynihan 
amendment and, third, on the Grams amendment. I further ask unanimous 
consent that the second and third votes be limited to 10 minutes each 
and that 4 minutes of debate time be available between each vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome the Senator's amendment and 
urge its adoption as well.
  I am prepared to yield back my time. Mr. President, as I understand, 
we are prepared to move ahead with votes. The first vote would be the 
Jeffords-Pell amendment followed by the Moynihan-Kennedy-Wellstone 
amendment, followed by the Grams amendment. I urge an aye vote on all 
of them.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2886

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2886 offered by the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Pell]. The yeas and 
nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyle] is 
necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen] is absent due 
to a death in the family.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Bryan] and the 
Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon] are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 481 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--49

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bryan
     Cohen
     Exon
     Kyl
  So the amendment (No. 2886) was rejected.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we might bring the membership up to speed 
about where we are on the various amendments and what we would like to 
try and do for the remainder of the afternoon.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I 
ask unanimous consent that the next two stacked votes be postponed to 
occur not before 5:20 this evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. We have made some good progress, and as I understand it, 
we have an Ashcroft amendment on drug testing; we have the Glenn 
amendment on displaced homemakers; and a Pell amendment on the 
reallocation of the distribution of the formula; and a Phil Gramm 
amendment with regard to the reduction of FTE's.
  There may be one or two other items, but I think those are the 
principal measures which we want to address. We have made good 
progress. We have two votes now which we will stack, hopefully have 
that vote shortly after 5:20. One is a very important measure dealing 
with the trade adjustment provisions. We are very hopeful after those 
we will come to the Job Corps amendment on which there is a great deal 
of interest. But we would like to invite those Members certainly on our 
side, my side and others who do have amendments to be prepared to move 
ahead because we are prepared to move ahead.
  I see the Senator from Ohio in the Chamber at this time; also, the 
Senator from Louisiana who had an amendment which we have been able to 
work out. It is a very important amendment. So we would welcome the 
opportunity to deal with either or both of those in the next immediate 
period. Then the Senator from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, has an 
amendment which has been worked out. And then perhaps we could be close 
enough to the period of 5:30 where we could vote on the other two 
amendments, if that is agreeable to the Members.


                Amendment No. 2889 to Amendment No. 2885

(Purpose: To ensure that training for displaced homemakers is included 
    among work force employment activities and work force education 
         activities for which funds may be used under this act)

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment. I send an 
amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2889 to amendment No. 2885.

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 11, strike lines 4 through 10 and insert the 
     following:
       (9) Displaced homemaker.--The term ``displaced homemaker'' 
     means an individual who--
       (A) has been dependent--
       (i) on assistance under part A of title IV of the Social 
     Security Act and whose youngest child is not younger than 16; 
     or
       (ii) on the income of another family member, but is no 
     longer supported by such income; and
       (B) is unemployed or underemployed, and is experiencing 
     difficulty in obtaining or upgrading employment. 

[[Page S 14863]]

       On page 50, line 9, strike ``and''.
       On page 50, line 12, strike the period and insert ``; 
     and''.
       On page 50, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
       (P) preemployment training for displaced homemakers.
       On page 54, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
       (6) providing programs for single parents, displaced 
     homemakers, and single pregnant women;
       On page 54, line 11, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(7)''.
       On page 54, line 13, strike ``(7)'' and insert ``(8)''.
       On page 108, line 15, strike ``and''.
       On page 108. line 16, strike the period and insert ``; 
     and''.
       On page 108, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
       (F) displaced homemakers.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  There are 45 minutes of debate equally divided.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer this amendment 
because I am extremely concerned that the current provisions in this 
bill will neglect and ignore a very important segment of our 
population, and that is displaced homemakers. Nationwide there are 17 
million displaced homemakers. We have close to 700,000 in Ohio.
  How do you define displaced homemaker? It can be people who are 
divorced; it can be widows. It does not have to be women. As a matter 
of fact, it can be widowers, those who have lost their wives and are 
responsible for taking care of the children in the family.
  In other words, they are at-risk people which this bill has said it 
wants to take care of, which is defined in the bill, but I think this 
particular group has been pretty much left out. And I think that is a 
shame. I realize that the managers of the bill do not want amendments 
in the bill and are trying to hold those down, but I do not want to see 
us hold down amendments and see some 17 million displaced homemakers 
not be dealt with properly in this legislation, and that is what we are 
talking about here.
  The current Perkins vocational programs for displaced homemakers and 
single parents has been extremely effective. Approximately 80 percent 
of women served in these programs are placed in employment and/or 
postsecondary education.
  Mr. President, I repeat that. Approximately 80 percent of women 
served in these programs are placed in employment and/or postsecondary 
education. That is an amazing success story, 80 percent. If that is not 
considered a success story, I certainly do not know what is.
  It is a good example in which something that we created many years 
ago works and works well. Recent statistics show that 85 percent of 
former program participants across the Nation rated the displaced 
homemakers programs ``excellent'' or ``very good.'' And over 75 percent 
said that these programs were better than other Government-funded 
programs they had participated in. In other words, it gets accolades 
all over.
  Mr. President, not long ago a lot of us voted for a welfare reform 
bill that was heavy on promises but light on the mechanics of how you 
get people off the welfare rolls. Well, what we are talking about right 
now is a vital component of moving people from welfare to work. And we 
can pass all the laws in the world requiring people to get off of 
welfare and get a job, but it is not going to do the least bit of good 
if we do not provide them with the job skills. That is where the rubber 
meets the road. That is what is going to move single parents from 
welfare to work.
  Amber McDonald back in Ohio recently sent me a letter about her 
experiences about such training. I would like to quote this.

       I'd like to state that I am on public assistance at this 
     time in my life and have one child. I don't take pride in the 
     fact I receive welfare. I am grateful to the State of Ohio 
     for their help. It has allowed me to survive and keep my 
     child. It's a long hard road to getting off assistance. One I 
     believe I'm on now. I am attending Displaced Homemaker 
     classes and these classes have helped me make decisions--good 
     solid decisions. Not the pleases-the-system decisions I've 
     made in the past. The Displaced Homemaker classes educated me 
     about where I could go, what I would need to succeed and how 
     to go about it. We need this program and others like it. A 
     lot of us want off welfare. We are as tired of being on the 
     system as the system is of having us.

  I think, Mr. President, that really summarizes this whole program. 
And this is why the success ratio of displaced homemaker programs is so 
high. It is because of people like Amber. They take their training very 
seriously. They are not deadbeats. They are taking this very seriously, 
and they have a lot riding on it. And they have been working very hard 
with this program. Before 1984 when States were not required to fund 
displaced homemakers training activities, States, unfortunately, spent 
less than 1 percent of their funding on specialized services for 
displaced homemakers.
  This is unfortunate because programs for single parents and displaced 
homemakers have been effective in not only helping families move in the 
welfare system, but also in preventing families from entering the 
welfare system. And displaced homemakers remain an at-risk population, 
something this legislation purports to deal with. According to the 1990 
census, more than half of the displaced homemakers live in or near 
poverty. I want to repeat that. According to the 1990 census, more than 
half of the displaced homemakers live in or near poverty. Some recent 
statistics show that 47 percent of displaced homemakers lack a high 
school diploma, and the median annual personal income for displaced 
homemakers is $6,766. Try living on that with a child in this modern 
day and age.
  And I know that my distinguished colleague from Kansas will argue 
that this amendment, by separately defining and listing displaced 
homemakers, is somehow giving preferential treatment to one category of 
people and therefore goes against the philosophy of job training 
consolidation.
  Unfortunately, displaced homemakers seem to be singled out for 
exclusion under this bill. For some unknown reason, the displaced 
homemakers are the only major program from Perkins not included in this 
bill. While ignoring displaced homemakers, the bill singles out 
veterans, out-of-school youth, youth in correctional facilities, adults 
in correctional facilities, older workers, at-risk youth, and 
individuals with disabilities, just to name a few.
  But this was the only major program from Perkins not included in this 
bill. In fact, language in the House bill, H.R. 1617, the careers bill, 
includes a requirement for States to provide plans on addressing 
displaced homemakers. And that bill passed with an overwhelming 
bipartisan support of 345 to 79 in the House of Representatives.
  My amendment will not--and I repeat will not--result in a set-aside. 
This amendment will only make it permissible for States--does not 
require it--it makes it permissible for States to fund specialized 
vocational employment and educational activities. It just makes it 
permissible for States to fund specialized vocational employment and 
educational activities. States will still have the flexibility in 
determining the funding amount and the types of programs to institute. 
There is nothing in this amendment that will require the States to fund 
employment or educational activities for displaced homemakers. I just 
want to make sure that States are encouraged and reminded to continue 
these programs that are working so well.
  Now, there may be some who will argue that displaced homemakers are 
included under the dislocated workers definition, but the reality is 
that this will not--I repeat will not--result in programs or services 
for these women. Displaced homemakers were included in the definition 
of a dislocated worker when Congress passed the Economic Dislocation 
and Worker Adjustment Act in 1988. And in 1994, a survey of 35 States 
found that virtually no services were provided to displaced homemakers 
under EDWAA.
  Another argument that I have heard is theoretically everyone is 
eligible for services under this act under the discretion of the 
States. Well, given that we are already reducing the funding by 15 
percent under this block grant, it is clear that funding will be 
inadequate to serve even the populations that are specifically 
referenced. I have been hearing from many people in Ohio who have 
benefited from these services. I read one such account a moment ago. 
And these women are now gainfully employed, and they are providing for 
their families. Recent data from just my home State of Ohio shows that 
displaced homemakers in Ohio who have gone through training programs 
are 

[[Page S 14864]]

now working an average of 32 hours per week.
  For example, Rebecca Richards, from Fairfield, OH, wrote how she and 
her child's life changed since she participated in a displaced 
homemaker program.
  She said:

       As a result of the programs available, I was able to become 
     a productive person in society.

  And she concluded by saying:

       With the program, I found a friend who counseled me, 
     listened to complaints and successes, gave me useful 
     information and training, and helped me meet with other 
     single parents to form a network of friends.

  Let us face it. The traditional vocational training programs will not 
provide this type of training.
  Another Ohioan, Diane Cook, wrote me saying that:

       Everyone makes mistakes but they all should be allowed a 
     second chance. Give us that second chance.

  The bottom line is to employ single parents so they can support their 
families. And what better way to accomplish this objective than 
encouraging the States to conduct tailored training programs which will 
affect over 17 million displaced homemakers all over this country?
  Mr. President, I would say let us give them a second chance. I would 
only repeat two major facts. This is the one area that was not picked 
up out of Perkins and used as examples in this bill. It is included by 
an overwhelming vote that the House had on it, included in the House 
vote.
  I urge adoption of this amendment. At the appropriate time I will 
move for a record rollcall vote. And I reserve the remainder of our 
time on this side.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I would like to ask the Senator from Ohio a couple 
questions because, as I understand it, in his proposed amendment he 
redefines the term ``displaced homemaker'' to include anyone who has 
been on welfare and has a child under the age of 16; is that correct?
  Mr. GLENN. Would you repeat the question, please?
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. As it is defined in the Senator's amendment, 
``displaced homemaker'' would be anyone who has been on welfare and has 
a child under the age of 16?
  Mr. GLENN. If they had been on welfare, yes.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. If they had been on welfare.
  Mr. GLENN. If they had been previously.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Then the Senator also adds employment training for 
displaced homemakers to the list of permissible job training 
activities?
  Mr. GLENN. Permissible job training activity, correct. Permissible, 
not required. That is an important point.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Programs for single parents and displaced homemakers 
and single pregnant women--the list required educational activities?
  Mr. GLENN. Was the question whether they are required to participate 
in educational activity?
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Yes. Are they required to do that?
  Mr. GLENN. No, they are not required to; they would be permitted to.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Well, I guess I thought that under the language, as I 
read it, the State would be required to offer that.
  Mr. GLENN. We have no amount required to be set aside in this. It 
permits the States a lot of flexibility to do what they think is best 
in each individual case, but we do not set aside a specific amount of 
money for this program.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Well, I am very sympathetic to what the Senator from 
Ohio is saying. I have been a strong supporter of the displaced 
homemaker programs. But I think that under the language of his 
amendment, as I read it, it significantly expands the concept of 
``displaced homemaker.''
  Under ``Education Activities'' it says that the State educational 
agency shall use the funds made available to the State under this 
subtitle for work force education activities. To carry it out, there 
are certain State activities that are included. It then lists these 
activities in this section.
  Mr. GLENN. The States could permit the program. It does not require 
that the States actually set aside a certain amount of money for this 
program. In other words, it includes them in the same category as the 
rest of the ones I read into the Record.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I suggest that if it is only something the Senator is 
wanting to list as a permissible activity, we already do that under the 
Workforce Development Act. It is listed as a definition. It is included 
in the dislocated workers as one of the benchmarks in the bill. 
Although displaced homemakers are not counted separately, I will argue 
this is still a population that is very much a part of the training, 
both education and jobs, under the work force development bill.
  Mr. GLENN. The difficulty, I believe, is that displaced homemakers 
have not automatically been considered displaced workers in the past, 
so they get left out of these programs.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Can I ask the Senator a question? As I understand it, 
there are a number of programs that are available now for this 
population as defined by the Glenn amendment. There are about a half a 
dozen programs which are utilized in order to reach that population. 
This is a program that has proven to be an impressive success and 
provides a great sense of meaning for individuals who qualify. The fact 
that their lives are changed has a direct impact on the communities in 
which they reside.
  I understand that what the Senator wants to do with his amendment is 
to make sure that the definition, which is used in other programs, will 
be used in this program and that the States will have at least a 
requirement to develop a program. The Senator is not saying how much.
  Mr. GLENN. That is right.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The clear expectation is that the respective States are 
going to provide some form of assistance to displaced homemakers. The 
Senator from Ohio is hopeful, and I agree, that States will recognize 
the importance of these services and they will find an area with which 
they will provide further support. But the Senator from Ohio is not 
prescribing a percent or amount.
  What my colleague is basically doing, as I understand the amendment, 
is making sure that the need is going to be highlighted so that some 
attention is going to be focused on the program. If the States want a 
robust program, they can do it. If the States want a very modest 
program, they can do it. But nonetheless, this function, which is of 
such importance to many women in our society, will not be lost. That is 
the way I read the Senator's amendment, and it is a reason why I think 
it is commendable. I think that it is an extraordinarily vulnerable 
population and one which justifies this kind of support and attention.
  Mr. GLENN. The Senator stated it very, very well. I agree with his 
statement.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I will only say, the definition as we 
traditionally thought of is one which is defined as a full-time 
homemaker for a substantial number of years and who no longer receives 
financial support previously provided by a spouse or public assistance. 
That is what we traditionally thought of as a displaced homemaker.
  I will suggest that this expanded definition includes anyone who has 
been on welfare and has a child under the age of 16 will be, obviously, 
someone who is receiving some duplicative assistance as well.
  I just suggest while it is a very vulnerable population, the 
amendment does make a dramatic change, and I suggest, at least of my 
reading of it, under the education requirements that it is a required 
education activity. While it is permissible under job training, as I 
read it, it is required under education activities.
  I just think, Mr. President, that it runs contrary to the thrust of 
this bill which is attempting to get away, again, from our practice of 
narrowly defining programs and eligible recipients. Not that we do not 
all have some real sympathy; I believe it is important to be able to 
reach that population. But this practice is the reason we have, again, 
so many separate programs and I think have not served any of them as 
well as they could be and why we worked hard to try and do a totality 
of the system that could provide better quality assistance.
  So I have to oppose this. I think that it really goes in a different 
direction to 

[[Page S 14865]]

a larger degree than we had intended by creating the programs that we 
had under this legislation.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might 
require.
  The displaced homemakers are not mentioned in the bill itself, yet at 
the same time, the bill singles out, as I understand, the veterans, 
singles out out-of-school youth, youth in correctional facilities, 
adults in correctional facilities, older workers, at-risk youth and 
individuals with disabilities. So it is not that the bill does not 
specify some of these specific difficulties that people have and try to 
address them.
  As the Senator from Massachusetts said a moment ago, we estimate 
there are some 17 million displaced homemakers across this country. 
These can be men as well as women. The wife has died, a person is 
having a problem trying to raise the kids and that qualifies as a 
displaced homemaker as well as the usual definition of the wife who may 
be divorced or may have lost her husband for whatever reason or 
another. The figures are outstanding with regard to this program.
  Approximately 80 percent of women served in the programs are placed 
in employment and postsecondary education; 80 percent. That is an 
amazing success story. It is very successful, and that is the reason I 
brought it up. It does not require the States to put money aside. It 
does not require that they set up programs. It says that they will be 
permitted to. On programs that have been successful and are continuing 
to be successful, they will be permitted to and, obviously, encouraged 
to because there is a need, and that need can be addressed if we adopt 
this amendment.
  I do not want to cut off debate. I will be happy to yield back time 
and move to a vote at the appropriate time, if no one else wishes to 
speak.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, just to clarify, displaced homemakers 
is listed in the bill. It is a category under ``dislocated workers,'' 
and that is true with the definition that I gave earlier. But it is a 
benchmark under the dislocated worker section as something that should 
be addressed without setting aside any special allocation.
  So just to clarify, we were conscious of it being an important 
population. It was not addressed as the Senator from Ohio would like to 
see it by his amendment. I do not want people to think we did not 
debate this and were not cognizant of that group.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think both Senators are correct. It is 
not defined as the Senator from Ohio wanted. It is defined as the 
Senator from Kansas has referred. It does seem, as I mentioned earlier 
and for the reasons the Senator from Ohio has spelled out, that we want 
to make sure this population is highlighted. As the Senator has pointed 
out as well, it will be up to the State to decide whether they are 
going to have an enhanced and robust program or not. But the Senator is 
trying to make sure that it is a population that is not overlooked.
  Mr. President, if this completes the debate on this issue and it is 
agreeable with the Senator from Ohio, I would hope we could move onto 
the Senator from Connecticut's amendment which is yet to be considered. 
Has the Senator concluded?
  Mr. GLENN. I have concluded. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Glenn 
amendment to the Workforce Development Act. Although, the Senator from 
Ohio and I may be at odds this week over baseball's American League 
Championship, I could not agree more with his amendment that includes 
displaced homemakers and single parents in workforce education 
programs.
  It is difficult to understand why these individuals, displaced 
homemakers, and single parents, are not currently included in this act. 
Congress has long mandated that these women had access to the job 
training and vocational education services needed to become and remain 
economically self-sufficient. Without including these single parents, 
we are severely penalizing women who choose to raise families and are 
then forced to cope without income due to the loss of their husbands or 
divorce.
  I must emphasize that this amendment is not a set-aside, with no 
mandated funding and it adds no cost to the bill.
  Further, the amendment preserves State flexibility and only clarifies 
that these services are permissible and not required by the State. The 
decision about how to serve displaced homemakers and single parents and 
at what level remains with the State.
  The amendment's definition of ``displaced homemaker'' is the same as 
under Federal legislation under JTPA, Perkins, the Displaced Homemakers 
Self-Sufficiency Act, and the Higher Education Act. When displaced 
homemakers are defined as dislocated workers, they are simply not 
served through workforce training programs.
  We cannot ignore this important segment of our population. These 
single parents are as deserving of career training as any other segment 
of our dislocated worker population.
  Further, this amendment continues the theme of the recently-passed 
welfare reform legislation that moves citizens from public assistance 
to payrolls through education.
  Let us come together on this amendment that truly supports family 
values. If we are to prioritize the working family in our society, we 
cannot forget those parents that have sacrificed economic gain for the 
growth of their children. When those single parents are left without a 
monthly paycheck, we must at least be willing to provide educational 
assistance that puts their family back on the road to self-sufficiency.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Glenn 
amendment be set aside and that the vote occur after the previously 
scheduled votes on the Moynihan amendment and the Grams amendment, 
which will occur after 5:20, with 4 minutes of debate in between those 
amendments.
  I believe the Senator from Michigan wants to speak for a few moments 
on Senator Moynihan's amendment before Senator Dodd offers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. First, is there objection to the unanimous-
consent request? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Michigan.


                           Amendment No. 2887

  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator 
from Kansas for letting me go in at this point and yielding me time off 
of the bill so that I can speak for a moment on the bill and also on 
the Moynihan amendment.
  Mr. President, from World War II until the 1980's, American families 
saw a steady rise in their standard of living. The poorest 20 percent 
saw their incomes increase by over 130 percent, and the middle 40 
percent of American families doubled their income. Paraphrasing the 
words of John Kennedy, ``a rising tide raised all boats.''
  A bedrock truth of American life virtually since our creation as a 
Nation has been the assurance that, with initiative and hard work, men 
and women can pull themselves up, and even more importantly, 
generations of Americans confidently expected that their children would 
have better lives than they had.
  Unfortunately, most Americans no longer feel that for a variety of 
reasons, including Government policies in the 1980's, the increasing 
Federal deficit, our toleration of discrimination against American 
products in foreign markets, and a wider labor base in the United 
States. People are working harder to advance more slowly and, in some 
cases, only to slide back down.
  Individuals who enter the labor market today expect to change jobs at 
least seven times within their lifetimes. This requires an 
extraordinary and unprecedented flexibility on their part. Workers are 
required to adapt to new situations and master new skills quickly if 
they are to succeed. But this cannot be done alone.
  The Federal Government has a critical role in providing a system of 
training and retraining programs to help people through these 
transitions. In today's world marketplace, these programs are more 
important now than ever. However, as new programs to meet new needs 
have been designed and 

[[Page S 14866]]
implemented, the system has become needlessly complicated. Many people 
who require job training services become lost within the maze of 
programs. A recent GAO report cited over 100 Federal programs that 
offer job training services. So, clearly, some consolidation and 
restructuring is necessary.
  Mr. President, the Senator from New York, however, has offered an 
amendment to this bill which I think is critically important. It would 
maintain the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act as a separate program. 
This is a critically needed program which was set up to help workers 
who lose their jobs because of trade agreements into which we enter. 
And given the growing role of exports in our Nation's economy, a 
program of that type is required.
  But even more important, a commitment was made during the debate in 
the presentation of both NAFTA and GATT. A commitment was made that 
trade adjustment assistance would be there if those two agreements were 
entered into and were implemented by the Congress. We knew when those 
agreements were passed that there would be a loss of jobs in some 
sectors and, knowing that, those agreements were entered into. And we 
decided, as part of that approach, to compensate for what are the harsh 
consequences to many in some sectors of our economy.
  NAFTA-specific trade adjustment assistance provisions were added to 
NAFTA. They were added in order to gain more support for NAFTA in 
Congress. It was a commitment that was made and should be kept. And now 
that NAFTA has passed and American jobs are indeed being lost in some 
sectors, the least we can do is carry out our commitment that was made 
at that time and which helped to get approval of those two agreements. 
And the least we can do is provide a safety net for those Americans who 
have lost their jobs because of those agreements, either because the 
jobs have relocated to Mexico, or because they were displaced by 
imports from Mexico as a result of NAFTA.
  Mr. President, the workers that frequently lose those jobs because of 
trade agreements are people who have worked their whole lives at one 
place. Their skills have been developed to suit the workplaces. Often 
they require extensive retraining. Trade adjustment assistance provides 
that training and it does so successfully. Over 85 percent of the 
workers assisted by the TAA have found permanent employment.
  Mr. President, workers from my State of Michigan have benefited from 
TAA. From January 1993 to August 1995, over 4,000 workers in the State 
of Michigan received trade adjustment assistance. As I said, it has 
been 85-percent successful. We have had $4 million in training money, 
over $7 million for job location assistance and supplementary income. 
Those funds were used to help support families until they could get on 
their feet again and obtain permanent employment.
  So while I generally support the goals of this legislation, Mr. 
President, some consolidation and reorganization of the system, I 
believe, is indicated. Surely, we ought to keep the commitments we made 
just a few years ago to the people who we knew were going to be 
displaced by trade agreements and keep our commitment to have a trade 
adjustment-specific program kept in place for them.
  Mr. President, we should strive to pass a bill which recognizes the 
Federal job training network and provides more flexibility for States, 
but does so in a way which empowers individuals and provides maximum 
access to needed services.
  The bill before us, S. 143, accomplishes these goals to a 
considerable extent. It would provide States with a substantial amount 
flexibility, institute benchmarks for service that States must meet, 
establish a reporting system to track recipients of services, and 
coordinate the program more closely with the private sector. All of 
these are important changes which I support.
  Under S. 143, States will be required to formulate a State plan which 
explains how they will provide services with particular attention paid 
to how they will meet the needs of special population groups, like 
older workers. This will allow States to better tailor services to the 
local market demands.
  In Michigan, in recent years, this has unfortunately often meant 
responding to large, sometimes permanent layoffs of factory workers. 
Several towns in my State are undergoing this process as we speak.
  Compounding the problem within Michigan is the fact that many of our 
larger urban centers have entirely different employment problems. This 
bill would better enable us to respond to this type of variety by 
tailoring the program to address such situations.
  I am very concerned, however, about changes to the Job Corps Program 
in the bill. Administration of the program would be turned over to the 
States and 25 Job Corps centers would be closed.
  I support the approach to be offered by Senators Specter and Simon 
that would maintain Federal standards and administration while 
increasing State and local involvement. Governors would have an 
opportunity to review a community's application before it was submitted 
to the Department of Labor. Community organizations and local work 
force development boards would actively participate.
  The State of Michigan currently operates two Job Corps centers, one 
in Detroit, one in Grand Rapids, and a third is slated to open in Flint 
in 1996. As an indication of the Flint community's commitment to this 
program, over 30 local organizations have raised $2 million in 
resources to help support the program. Michigan, like many other 
industrial States, has a number of economically depressed communities 
struggling to train workers and generate jobs. Job Corps is one of the 
programs that many of these communities rely upon to help meet that 
challenge.
  I am concerned that the block grant approach will not adequately 
retain the commitment to special population groups like older workers 
or at-risk youth which require different services than the rest of the 
population. Although the bill does contain benchmarks which the States 
would establish for themselves, I would like to see a clearer 
commitment to serving these groups.
  Also, while the bill also allows for the establishment of local work 
force development boards to help integrate local officials into the 
process, they are not mandated. One of the important and productive 
parts of the current system is the private industry councils, or PIC's 
which work with local and county officials to design training programs 
that meet the needs of local businesses. It is fundamental to the 
success of job training programs that we prepare people for jobs which 
exist in their communities. Local work force development boards can be 
an important part of assuring that that happens. Therefore, I would 
like to see an expanded role for local participation.
  Finally, I would like to highlight two organizations within my state 
which demonstrate the great potential of job training. Focus:HOPE, a 
retraining center in Detroit, was established in 1968 to meet the needs 
of the city's low-income residents. This program has been a shining 
success story. For example, a recent study found that 85 percent of the 
graduates of Focus:HOPE's Machinist Training Institute are employed in 
machinist trades. This is a tremendous step forward for people who come 
to the center with little educational background and very low skill 
levels. They leave with advanced training in computer-assisted 
machining. The average salary for this group is $25,000 to $35,000 per 
year. And, their skills are closely matched to the area's labor market. 
Some students are even recruited by local manufacturers before they 
finish their program. Focus:HOPE works. It provides an enormously 
valuable service to both the students and the Detroit community.
  Similarly, OperationAble, founded in 1989, has become one of the most 
successful job training centers of its kind in the country. It serves 
older workers, in an innovative way. Job counselors carefully examine 
each individual's background, future needs and aspirations before 
helping them to plan a training program. Over 83 percent of 
OperationAble's students are placed in permanent jobs. OperationAble is 
mobilizing a vital part of our community, our older workers, one which 
should not be left out in a proposed consolidation.
  Mr. President, the legislation before us has some pluses and minuses. 
I am hopeful that we will strengthen it. If 

[[Page S 14867]]
we focus on the needs of working families caught in a changing 
marketplace, and eliminate unnecessary duplication and waste; if we 
learn from experience and build on what has worked best, we will have 
taken an important step forward.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I was going to inquire of the managers of 
the bill, through the Chair, if it is appropriate that I send an 
amendment to the desk at this time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. We hope that the Senator will send his amendment to 
the desk.


                Amendment No. 2890 to Amendment No. 2885

              (Purpose: To improve the voucher provisions)

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Breaux], for himself, Mr. 
     Daschle, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Pell, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2890 to amendment No. 2885.

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 51, line 6, strike ``deliver'' and insert 
     ``deliver, to persons age 18 or older who are unable to 
     obtain Pell Grants under title IV of the Higher Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.),''.
       On page 53, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
       (D) Information.--A State that determines that a need 
     exists to train persons age 18 or older through activities 
     authorized under paragraph (6) shall indicate in the State 
     plan described in section 104 for the State, or the annual 
     report described in section 121(a) for the State, the extent, 
     if any, to which the State will use the authority of this 
     paragraph to deliver some or all such activities through a 
     system of vouchers, including indicating the information and 
     timeframes required under subparagraph (C).
       On page 104, line 2, strike ``or''.
       On page 104, line 7, strike the period and insert: ``; 
     or''.
       On page 104, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
       (3) beginning with program year 2000, in the case of a 
     State that elects to offer activities for persons age 18 or 
     older under section 106(a)(6), the State uses the authority 
     of section 106(a)(9) to deliver some or all of such 
     activities through a system of vouchers.
       On page 114, line 3, strike, ``or''.
       On page 114, line 9, strike the period and insert ``; or''.
       On page 114, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
       (C) in the case of a State that elects to offer activities 
     for persons age 18 or older under section 106(a)(6); uses the 
     authority of section 106(a)(9) to deliver some or all of such 
     activities through a system of vouchers.

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I want to first start off by thanking the 
distinguished managers of the bill, the Senator from Massachusetts, 
Senator Kennedy, and the Senator from Kansas, Senator Kassebaum, for 
all of the work they have been able to put into helping us draft this 
amendment. I think it is an amendment that should be enthusiastically 
supported by all of our colleagues.
  Mr. President, just as a concept of the background of the entire 
bill, what we are doing is consolidating about 90 Federal programs that 
currently serve people who are in need of job training, to meet the 
needs and the skills, or demand, as we move into the 21st century.
  I think the essence of the legislation is really monumental. It is 
historical that the U.S. Senate and, hopefully, the other body, at the 
appropriate time, can realize that all of these programs we have 
written over the years--90 different programs--aimed at encouraging 
people to become better trained so they could meet the demands and 
challenges of the work force in the 21st century need to be 
consolidated. If I found myself unemployed and I wanted to get help 
from my Government, I do not know if I would know where to go. There 
are 90 programs, and if somebody dumped them in front of me and said, 
``pick one,'' I would say, look, I have to be a rocket scientist to 
figure out which program fits my need.
  The reason for that is basically that I think in the last several 
decades, we as a Congress have tried to create a solution or program 
for every problem. As a result of trying to address every problem with 
a program, we ended up with all of these programs and tried to address 
every conceivable need of every citizen in the country. Some would 
suggest that the proper role of Government is to help solve everybody's 
problems all the time. I suggest that that is really not the proper 
role. The proper role is to help people to solve their own problems, 
help equip the citizens of this country to be in a position to solve 
their own problems. On the other extreme, some in Government think 
there is no role for Government at all, and that if somebody loses his 
job, so be it, let him survive if he can. That is the survival of the 
fittest theory, that suggests there is no role for Government that is 
proper or appropriate in helping the citizens of our country meet the 
needs that are facing them. If a plant is closed because of downsizing, 
tough luck. If a military base is closed in your area and all the jobs 
associated with that base are lost, tough luck. If, in fact, we have a 
disaster, or because of some trade policy, foreign imports are 
increased and you lose your job in the domestic industry here in this 
country, tough luck. There is no role for Government to help at all.

  That, I think, should be rejected categorically by all Members of 
this body as an improper response from Government. But we cannot, at 
the same time, create a program for every problem. What this 
legislation does is consolidate these 90 programs, make them more 
efficient, make them function better, make it easier for people to get 
help from the Government so they can help themselves. Because each of 
us has a duty in life to be responsible, to utilize the gifts we have, 
to help develop those gifts and be a better citizen. I think, by 
consolidating these programs, we move a long way toward accomplishing 
that.
  My amendment is, really, patterned after the great success we have 
had in this country with the GI bill. The GI bill's great success was 
not that it created a whole bunch of programs, because it did not. It 
created one program. It told the people of this country if they served 
in the military that when they got back, the Government was going to 
help them go to college. Under the GI bill we did not tell them which 
college they had to go to, and we did not tell them which program or 
which studies they had to take when they got there. We did not tell 
them what they had to major in, and we to not tell them what they had 
to minor in. But we said, here is some financial help. Go to the school 
you think can serve your needs the best and take the courses you enjoy, 
that you are best adapted for. The great success of the program was 
really its flexibility, calling on people to be challenged in what they 
want to do and figure out where they can best go to meet those 
requirements.
  The amendment I am offering with the managers of the bill provides 
incentives in this bill to encourage States to use vouchers, to give 
States the right to issue vouchers to the people in their State and let 
those individuals make the decisions as to how they best can get the 
proper training to meet the needs they have. Instead of what is usual 
in Washington or in some State capital, saying, ``You have to go here 
to get your training and it has to be this type of training,'' the 
voucher system will say to the individual, ``We trust you to make the 
right decision. We trust you to pick the best school, the best program, 
the best course that is going to meet your needs. No one in Washington 
is going to tell you where you can best be served. No one in your State 
capital is going to tell you what you have to do.''
  We, in this Government, trust the individual's instincts to do what 
is right when the proper choices are in front of him or her. So what we 
do in this amendment is fairly simple. It gives States two incentives, 
two incentives to adopt the voucher system.
  First, it authorizes the Secretary to provide incentive awards to 
States that have begun providing services through these vouchers of up 
to $15 million extra money that a State would be able to receive if it 
sets up a voucher program within the States to give vouchers to 
individuals to allow them to go to the particular program they think 
best fits their particular needs.
  The second incentive is that my amendment will allow Governors to use 
flexible funds on economic development activities if they have 
established a workforce development board 

[[Page S 14868]]

or a voucher system. This is in the third year of the program. We are 
saying to the States, you are going to be able to use your flexible 
funds on economic development if you put together this workforce 
development board or if you have established the voucher program. And, 
in the third year, under my amendment, if a State decides to set up a 
voucher program, then it would be able to use the flex funds for 
economic development activity.
  So this amendment essentially puts two additional incentives in the 
legislation to encourage the States--not demand the States to do it, 
but to encourage the States--to set up vouchers for the people who need 
the benefit of the programs. Then let that individual take those 
vouchers and go to where he or she thinks the needs they have can best 
be met within the program.
  That would increase competition because all of these programs would 
start competing for the vouchers of the individuals. People in this 
society know if they provide a better service, people are going to use 
that service. They are going to go to the school that meets their 
needs. They are going to go to the best school, not a worse school; not 
a second-class school, but the best school. So schools, I think, 
because of competition, because of this amendment, will do a better job 
because they know people will be going to them based on their ability 
to deliver the training that individuals who are unemployed actually 
need.
  I think it also teaches individuals responsibility, because they are 
going to have to make that decision. They are not going to just sit 
back and say, ``Tell me where I have to go, tell me what I have to do, 
and tell me how I have to do it.'' They are going to say, ``I have to 
make a decision.'' Maybe for the first time in the lives of some 
individuals, they are going to start taking responsibility for their 
future by saying, ``I want to make sure I pick the best school, that I 
pick the best program. And after I finish with it, I know I am going to 
be a much better citizen.'' That individual will become a person who 
can market his or her abilities after receiving the training for the 
program they pick as opposed to the program that someone has picked for 
them.
  In addition, I point out that in return for accepting the vouchers, 
school and training providers will be required to provide performance 
information. That means the completion rates of the people who go to 
their schools, the licensing rates, placement retention, wage rates, 
which voucher recipients and others could use to make good decisions 
about where to go to get the training they need.
  In other words, schools that provide training to unemployed workers 
are going to have to provide information to the workers, the unemployed 
workers who are looking for the training, on how their schools perform 
so those unemployed workers will then have information they can use to 
determine which school is the best for their needs.
  If I had a list of performance results based on schools, and at one 
school 95 percent of the people who went to that school and got the 
training became employed, and there was another school that only got 
jobs for about 15 percent of their people, is there any question about 
which school I would want to go to or anybody would want to go to? Of 
course, the answer is simple: They would want to go to the school that 
finds jobs for people that complete their programs.
  That is competition and that is what this amendment does. It allows 
individuals to become more responsible. It allows them to make the 
decision based on what is best for them while at the same time it 
requires responsibility on the part of the institutions that they would 
be going to, to make sure that fly-by-night groups and organizations 
that have been created overnight just to take advantage of these 
programs are not going to be successful. With the information they are 
required to present, everybody will have a chance to make the right 
decision.
  Mr. President, I think this amendment adds to the bill. I think it is 
an important step. It makes the bill an even stronger piece of 
legislation, one that we can all be proud of supporting.
  I thank the managers of the bill, Senator Kennedy and Senator 
Kassebaum, for their involvement and their assistance and their 
encouragement in this effort. I encourage all our colleagues to support 
the amendment, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  I thank the Senator from Louisiana for his cooperation on this 
innovative and creative concept, and thank as well Senator Daschle and 
others who have favored this improvement in the legislation. The way 
this has been crafted, those who will be eligible will be over 18 years 
of age, who are unable to obtain a Pell grant.
  We can imagine a situation where there has been a significant closing 
of a plant or phasing out of a defense industry, or perhaps as a result 
of a merger, as we saw with the Chase Manhattan Bank and the Chemical 
Bank, affecting some 12,000 workers in different communities out there. 
We can see local community colleges or other educational facilities in 
communities responding to those particular needs. They will be 
developing programs which are designed to place individuals and upgrade 
their skills so they can be successfully employed.
  We are maximizing the flexibility with this amendment and giving an 
individual the opportunity to take advantage of that situation, or 
maybe they will decide that they want to go to a different part of the 
country and will be able to go into a different program. We are 
permitting the States to make the judgment about what that voucher will 
be worth. It may be worth a couple of thousand dollars in 
Massachusetts, and it may be valued less in a different part of the 
country. So there is maximum flexibility within the State and maximum 
versatility for the displaced worker.
  For the reasons that the Senator has spelled out, I think it is a 
very, very creative and imaginative way of trying to make us do better 
with training programs. I want to thank him for his cooperation. He has 
had legislation on this over a period of years and has worked very 
closely with all of the members of the committee.
  We have tried to capture the essence of his proposal. I think we 
have, and we look forward to its success and, hopefully, building on it 
over the period of the future.
  I thank the Senator from Louisiana. At an appropriate time, I hope 
the amendment will be accepted unanimously.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I, too, am pleased that we have been 
able to work out an agreement on the language with the Senator from 
Louisiana. He spent a lot of time on this. He has given a lot of 
thought to it. And I have supported the limited use of vouchers for job 
training services but only as an option for the States. I think there 
is a recognition that there is a place, but we need to be careful on 
how we move in that direction. I have been very concerned about 
mandating vouchers because it is a new and untested concept. Therefore, 
I think the direction that this amendment would take us is an important 
one.
  I very much value the effort of Senator Breaux to speak to this. He 
cares a lot about it. And the amendment will not mandate that States 
provide vouchers but, rather, will provide additional means to assist 
and encourage States to implement a voucher system. I am pleased to be 
a supporter of this amendment.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, if I can just add one short note, I thank 
my colleagues for their most generous comments. Lt. Gov. Buddy McKay, 
of Florida, who served in the House with some of us when we were in the 
other body, in behalf of Governor Chiles, has a statement which is a 
couple of sentences that I want to read because I think it really makes 
the point very well. He said:

       In this country we trust citizens to choose their elected 
     officials, but we don't trust them to choose training 
     programs. Currently, leaders of Government employees in 
     Washington, in Federal regional offices, in State capitals 
     and State regional offices, and in service sites dictate 
     those decisions for their own citizens. That is bunk. 
     Informed citizens can make the best decisions for themselves. 
     It is a simple enough premise in this country, but it is a 
     revolutionary idea for government.

  I think the point is well made that we trust citizens to make 
decisions on who their elected officials are but we 

[[Page S 14869]]
do not trust them to decide which programs are best for them. I think, 
as the Lieutenant Governor said, that is ``bunk.'' And this amendment 
would, I think, help us overcome that current situation and allow, 
through the voucher program, people to make the best decisions for 
themselves and trust the American citizen to do what is right instead 
of requiring the government to make that decision for them.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are prepared to yield back time and 
ask for the consideration of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded?
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Louisiana.
  The amendment (No. 2890) was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?


                Amendment No. 2891 to Amendment No. 2885

 (Purpose: To provide for a migrant or seasonal farmworker program and 
                   for national discretionary grants)

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and I ask 
for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), for himself and 
     Mr. Pell, proposes an amendment numbered 2891 to amendment 
     No. 2885.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 7, line 19, strike ``186(c)'' and insert 
     ``187(c)''.
       On page 74, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 108. MIGRANT OR SEASONAL FARMWORKER PROGRAM.

       (a) General Authority.--Using funds made available under 
     section 124(b)(3), the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary 
     of Education, acting jointly on the advice of the Federal 
     Partnership, shall make grants to, or enter into contracts 
     with, entities to carry out the activities described in 
     subsection (d).
       (b) Eligible Entities.--To be eligible to receive a grant 
     or enter into a contract under this section, an entity shall 
     have an understanding of the problems of migrant or seasonal 
     farmworkers, a familiarity with the area to be served, and a 
     previously demonstrated capacity to administer effectively a 
     diversified program of workforce development activities for 
     migrant or seasonal farmworkers.
       (c) Program Plan.--
       (1) In general.--To be eligible to receive a grant or enter 
     into a contract under this section, an entity described in 
     subsection (b) shall submit to the Federal Partnership a plan 
     that describes a 3-year strategy for meeting the needs of 
     migrant or seasonal farmworkers in the area to be served by 
     such entity.
       (2) Contents.--Such plan shall--
       (A) identify the education and employment needs of the 
     population to be served and the manner in which the services 
     to be provided will strengthen the ability of the individuals 
     served to obtain or be retained in unsubsidized employment;
       (B) describe the services to be provided and the manner in 
     which such services are to be integrated with other 
     appropriate services; and
       (C) describe the goals and benchmarks to be used to assess 
     the performance of such entity in carrying out the activities 
     assisted under this section.
       (d) Authorized Activities.--Funds made available under this 
     section shall be used to carry out comprehensive workforce 
     development activities, and related services, for migrant or 
     seasonal farmworkers.
       (e) Consultation with State and Local Partnerships and 
     Boards.--In making grants and entering into contracts under 
     this section, the Federal Partnership shall consult with the 
     Governors (or, where established, the State workforce 
     development boards described in section 105) and with local 
     partnerships (or, where established, the local workforce 
     development boards described in section 118(b)).
       On page 74, line 8, strike ``108.'' and insert ``109.''.
       On page 74, line 10, strike ``124(b)(3)'' and insert 
     ``124(b)(4)''.
       On page 117, line 7, strike ``92.7'' and insert ``90.75''.
       On page 117, strike lines 11 through 15 and insert the 
     following:
       (3) 1.25 percent shall be reserved for carrying out section 
     108;
       (4) 0.2 percent shall be reserved for carrying out section 
     109;
       (5) 5.0 percent shall be reserved for making incentive 
     grants under section 122(a), for making national 
     discretionary grants under section 184, and for the 
     administration of this title;
       On page 117, line 16, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(6)''.
       On page 117, line 18, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(7)''.
       On page 117, line 19, strike ``184 and 185'' and insert 
     ``185 and 186''.
       On page 162, line 17, strike ``186(c)'' and insert 
     ``187(c)''.
       On page 163, line 4, strike ``108, and 173'' and insert 
     ``108, 109, 173, and 184''.
       On page 163, line 6, strike ``108, 122(a), 161, and 184'' 
     and insert ``108, 109, 122(a), 161, 184, and 185''.
       On page 163, lines 12 and 13, strike ``186(c) and 187(b)'' 
     and insert ``187(c) and 188(b)''.
       On page 166, line 22, strike ``186(c)'' and insert 
     ``187(c)''.
       On page 183, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

     SEC. 184. NATIONAL DISCRETIONARY GRANTS.

       (a) National Grants.--Using funds made available under 
     section 124(b)(5), the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary 
     of Education, acting jointly on the advice of the Federal 
     Partnership, may in a timely manner award a national grant--
       (1) to an eligible entity described in subsection (b) to 
     carry out the activities described in such subsection; and
       (2) at the request of an officer described in subsection 
     (c), to such an officer to carry out the activities described 
     in such subsection.
       (b) Rapid Response Grants.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Major economic dislocation.--Funds made available under 
     this section to an eligible entity described in this 
     subsection may be used to provide adjustment assistance to 
     workers affected by a major economic dislocation that results 
     from a closure, layoff, or realignment described in section 
     3(8)(B).
       (B) Emergency determination.--Such funds may also be used 
     to provide adjustment assistance to dislocated workers 
     whenever the Federal Partnership (with the agreement of the 
     Governor involved) determines that an emergency exists with 
     respect to any particular distressed industry or any 
     particularly distressed area. The Federal Partnership may 
     make arrangements for the immediate provision of such 
     emergency financial assistance for the purposes of this 
     subsection with any necessary supportive documentation to be 
     submitted on a date agreed to by the Governor and the Federal 
     Partnership.
       (2) Eligible entities.--To be eligible to receive a grant 
     under this section for activities described in this 
     subsection, an eligible entity shall be a State or local 
     entity.
       (3) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section for activities described in this subsection, an 
     eligible entity shall submit an application to the Federal 
     Partnership at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Federal Partnership determines to be 
     appropriate.
       (c) Disaster Relief Employment Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--Funds made available under this section to 
     officers described in this subsection shall be used solely to 
     provide individuals in a disaster area with employment in 
     projects to provide clothing, shelter, and other humanitarian 
     assistance for disaster victims and in projects regarding the 
     demolition, cleanup, repair, renovation, and reconstruction 
     of damaged and destroyed structures, facilities, and lands 
     located within the disaster area.
       (2) Officers.--To be eligible to receive a grant under this 
     section for activities described in this subsection, an 
     officer shall be a chief executive officer of a State within 
     which is located an area that has suffered an emergency or a 
     major disaster as defined in paragraph (1) or (2), 
     respectively, of section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
     5122(1) and (2)) (referred to in this section as a ``disaster 
     area'').
       On page 183, line 9, strike ``184.'' and insert ``185.''.
       On page 183, line 12, strike ``124(b)(6)'' and insert 
     ``124(b)(7)''.
       On page 188, line 4, strike ``185.'' and insert ``186.''
       On page 192, line 1, strike ``186.'' and insert ``187.''.
       On page 204, line 9, strike ``187.'' and insert ``188.''
       On page 207, line 16, strike ``186'' and insert ``187''.
       On page 207, line 21, strike ``186'' and insert ``187''.
       On page 207, line 24, strike ``186'' and insert ``187''.
       On page 208, line 2, strike ``186'' and insert ``187''.
       On page 208, line 6, strike ``186'' and insert ``187''.
       On page 208, line 17, strike ``186'' and insert ``187''.
       On page 211, line 17, strike ``188.'' and insert ``189.''.
       On page 216, line 10, strike ``187'' and insert ``188''.
       On page 293, line 9, strike ``186(c)'' and insert 
     ``187(c)''.

[[Page S 14870]]

       On page 307, line 25, strike ``124(b)(6)'' and insert 
     ``124(b)(7)''.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself 
and the Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Pell.
  Mr. President, this is an amendment which we worked on for some time. 
I believe it will be accepted by both the floor manager and the ranking 
minority member.
  Very briefly, this amendment is designed to establish a rapid 
response service where you have national disasters or national needs 
that would go beyond the capacity of States to respond to them. Our 
distinguished colleague from Louisiana talked about some of those when 
he mentioned base closures. Often, States cannot anticipate those 
results. All of a sudden States find themselves in the situation where 
a significant number of people lose their jobs--in the case of base 
closures because the Federal Government has made a decision affecting 
the economy of the local area. There are also, of course, other 
situations where you have natural disasters.
  I think all of us at one time or another have certainly seen our 
States afflicted by unanticipated events with weather or climatic 
conditions. Again, we can find people who, through no fault of their 
own and no fault of the business, are displaced. This amendment allows 
for some additional funds to respond to people who find themselves out 
of work under those circumstances.
  As the Presiding Officer will no doubt recall, I offered this 
amendment in the committee. There was a good discussion at the time, 
and we lost the amendment on a tie vote 8 to 8. But there was a strong 
enough feeling there that I brought this up to see if we could work out 
some of the language, which we are able to do.
  As a result of that, today I offer this amendment which will allow us 
to respond in those kind of situations. I think it is in the national 
interest for the Federal Government to provide assistance to our States 
under those circumstances and, just as importantly if not more 
importantly, the very people who find themselves without work and 
unable to provide for their families.
  I just want to underscore the point that has been made by others. We 
all know how well the economy is doing in certain areas. Profitability 
is up and productivity is at its highest level in many ways. The stock 
market has been doing very, very well. But, as the Senator from 
Massachusetts pointed out a few moments ago, look at 12,000 to 20,000 
people losing their jobs as a result of a merger between Chemical and 
Chase Bank. And in another act of downsizing, DuPont laid off some 
5,000 or 6,000 people recently. All of this downsizing contributes, I 
suppose, we are told, to the strength of the economic well-being of the 
country. Yet, the people who lose their jobs are oftentimes forgotten 
in the discussion. We need to focus on what happens to these people and 
what happens to their families.
  This amendment does not address that situation specifically, but much 
of what is included in this bill does.
  For those reasons, I commend the distinguished Senator from Kansas, 
the chairman of the committee, for the work in this area. I think we 
need to be thinking creatively when we end up with a tax proposal, a 
tax bill coming up--which we are apt to--as to how we might pay more 
attention to what happens to those people who lose their jobs not from 
a natural disaster, not from some accident or something undertaken by 
Government, but when you have great mergers and acquisitions which may 
result in a real need--the merger itself may be worthwhile--but when 
results of that activity cause thousands of people to lose their jobs, 
I think we have a responsibility to respond to them, and we need to be 
thinking about how we can do that.
  I appreciate the efforts of Senator Kassebaum and staff to work the 
specifics out so this is now acceptable.
  This amendment offers real protection to States and workers affected 
by mass layoffs due to economic downsizing, plant and base closings, 
and natural disasters.
  It preserves the ability of the Federal Government to respond quickly 
and in a meaningful way to concentrated economic employment 
difficulties--the kind no one State can predict or pay for. Without 
this amendment, this assistance, which gets communities and workers 
through the worst of times, would no longer be available.
  We keep hearing about an economic recovery, a rising stock market. 
But we have to remember that one result of the improving economy is 
downsizing in many industries all across the country. All of a sudden 
people are being thrown out of work through no fault of their own.
  We may not be able to prevent these Americans from losing their jobs, 
but we should try to give them some aid in the form of training and 
other support to help them get back in to the work force.
  The need for such assistance will not diminish in the coming years. 
Defense-related layoffs in the private sector alone are continuing, 
with up to an additional 25- to 30-percent reduction expected within 
the next 2 to 3 years. Mergers in the banking and other industries are 
resulting in thousands of layoffs. And the downsizing trend is expected 
to continue. Natural disasters, like the flooding in the Midwest, 
cannot be predicted. We cannot just turn our backs on Americans in 
need.
  This amendment ensures that the resources will be available to 
provide emergency funds in order to get people back on their feet. 
Specific examples of how we have helped out recently are:
  In addition to the grants that will go to Connecticut, which I 
mentioned earlier, Washington State received $14.6 million to assist 
workers laid off by Boeing. More than $4 million in retraining dollars 
have been made available for 9,500 GTE employees expected to be severed 
from their jobs in 22 States, including Missouri, Washington, and 
Illinois. More than $100 million has been spent in the last 4 years in 
response to natural disasters. For example, for the 1993 Midwest 
floods, funding went to Missouri, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and 
Kansas.
  This kind of vital assistance will continue under my amendment. The 
Secretary of Labor, with the Federal partnership, will be able to 
provide States, communities, and workers with critical assistance when 
there is a mass layoff, base closing, or natural disaster.
  The need for this assistance is broadly recognized. Just last week, 
the National Governors' Association strongly endorsed this concept.
  This amendment also ensures that migrant farmworkers continue to 
receive training services. There could not be a needier population, 
yet, because they move so much, they are difficult to serve. This 
amendment provides the Secretary with funds to assist these workers, as 
he currently does.
  Mr. President, this amendment represents the kind of good compromise 
we can reach when we share the same goal--to assist workers in times of 
crisis.
  I appreciate the efforts of Senator Kassebaum and am pleased the 
amendment will be accepted.
  Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might use. 
I will be very brief.
  Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Connecticut for bringing 
this up, both in the committee and on the floor, and thank him for all 
of his work on this extremely important program, which I am pleased to 
say will be accepted.
  I am grateful to the Senator from Kansas for her support of the 
program as well.
  This amendment is particularly timely as we consider the events of 
the last few days with Hurricane Opal and the devastating economic 
impact it has left in its wake. It has been estimated to have caused 
over $2 billion in damage in that particular region of the country. 
What Member of this body would want the kind of devastation that has 
affected the Southern States? Not many years ago New England was 
similarly affected and we saw similar damage in the Midwest by the 
floods.
  I see my friend and colleague from California, which has been 
devastated by a wide variety of natural disasters, by extraordinary 
fires, earthquakes, and other natural disasters. I think we are also 
very mindful of these dramatic changes that have been taking place in 
terms of mergers, downsizing, and the changes in the defense 
procurement where we find men and women that have devoted their lives 
working for 

[[Page S 14871]]
this country. They have been in the defense production industry for 20 
or 30 years during the cold war, and now with these dramatic shifts in 
changes in the procurement policies in defense, we see them virtually 
pink-slipped from these companies. They are older workers. We have some 
important responsibilities certainly to them. I think if you look at 
the record of this program particularly in the recent years under the 
Secretary of Labor it is really a commendable example about how these 
limited resources can be leveraged to give new hope and opportunity to 
tens of thousands of workers here in this country.

  I think it is an extremely important measure and we are enormously 
grateful for the willingness of our Chair to consider this. Because I 
know, for the reasons she has outlined in the committee and expressed 
otherwise, of her concern about the general shape of this whole 
legislation, this has been modified, it has been adjusted to try to 
respond to some of her particular concerns and we are hopeful it will 
be accepted and included.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I, too, am pleased that we have been 
able to come together in agreement on the amendment put forward by the 
Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Rhode Island. Senator 
Dodd has been an eloquent advocate for wanting to make sure that these 
workers who may be laid off due to some sort of natural disaster would 
be taken care of, and we had some lengthy debates in the committee. 
This is an issue on which Members on both sides of the aisle have 
worked hard to address.
  The national interest in addressing major economic dislocations from 
natural disasters is something that affects all of our States and goes 
often across State lines. It is difficult for States to adequately 
prepare to handle themselves when there is a disaster that may happen 
without any advanced notice.
  While I have been reluctant to set aside a large amount at the 
Federal level which would further diminish moneys going to the States, 
this amendment will allow those funds already set aside at the national 
level for incentive grants to also be used for rapid response grants. 
This will assist workers affected by plant closures or mass layoffs or 
natural disasters.
  In addition, a small amount of funds are being made available for 
migrant and seasonal farm workers, and this I believe is also something 
that the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Rhode Island 
have been particularly concerned about as well.
  So I am pleased that this amendment does not substantially reduce the 
amount of funding that is going directly to the States under this bill, 
which was my primary concern when it was offered in committee.
  I appreciate the willingness of my colleagues on the committee, 
Senator Dodd and Senator Pell, to try to work out some language that we 
could all come together and support and I believe this is it.
  So for all these reasons, Mr. President, I think it is a good 
amendment. I am very appreciative of the efforts of the Senator from 
Connecticut and the Senator from Rhode Island to help work out the 
language.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair. Just very briefly, I meant to point out 
that while this is not directly a result of the amendment that 
hopefully will be adopted shortly, it is an indication of the kind of 
difference this amendment will make. Just today, the Department of 
Labor announced it would provide $1,500,000 in retraining assistance to 
some 600 employees of the Southern Connecticut Telephone Co., who just 
lost their jobs. Also, recently, Allied Signal, a defense contractor, 
closed a facility in Connecticut. The Federal Government is able to 
provide an additional $4,300,000 to assist those 1,500 employees who 
will have lost their work.
  This is an example of a national policy affecting a major local 
employer in that area, and so this the kind of thing in which we think 
the Federal Government can play a proper role in assisting in these 
kinds of emergencies.
  That first grant was announced today, and we are very pleased they 
are going to be offering some assistance to the people of Connecticut 
with that kind of support.
  Mr. President, I again thank my colleagues for their support.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to again join with Senator Dodd 
in sponsoring this amendment. Unfortunately, when a similar version was 
offered at the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee markup, it 
was defeated on an 8 to 8 tie.
  Senator Dodd and I know all too well how a State is affected by 
sudden, unexpected, large-scale worker dislocations. It is our strong 
belief that under S. 143 States would not be able to react go the large 
dislocations my home State has become familiar with recently. By their 
nature, these massive dislocations are abrupt events. In designing its 
general work force plan called for under this new legislation, no State 
would, or should, reserve a portion of its limited job training money 
to prepare for an event that might or might not take place at an 
undetermined time in the future.
  This is why we have introduced this amendment that reserves a small 
pool of money at the Federal level to be dispersed to States when and 
if they are in need. This program works well now and I believe it 
should be allowed to continue.
  I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, if there is no one else who wishes to 
speak on this amendment, I would urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield back the remainder of the time.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I yield back the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If all time is yielded back, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2891) was agreed to.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if I understand it correctly, I see my 
friend and colleague, the Senator from California who wanted to speak, 
and the Senator from New York also wanted to speak briefly. After these 
speakers it was the hope that we might move towards the votes which had 
been ordered. Is that the understanding of the Chair?
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Yes. Did I understand the Senator from Washington 
[Mrs. Murray] wanted to speak?
  Mr. KENNEDY. If we can hold that in abeyance. She had talked to me, 
and then I received other instructions. But if we could work out 
perhaps for the benefit of the Members who have been inquiring about 
how we might be proceeding, how long did the Senator from California 
desire?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I have about 12 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The only question is--how long did the Senator from New 
York wish to speak?
  Mr. D'AMATO. Five minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am just trying to think about how we might proceed. 
Does the Senator then want to speak after the three votes? Is that 
agreeable?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would be happy to do that. That will be helpful.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I think it would perhaps serve us best 
to have the Senator from California and the Senator from New York make 
their comments and then go to the three votes that have already been 
ordered, the one on trade adjustment assistance, the amendment of 
Senator Gramm, and the amendment of Senator Glenn. And then at that 
time the majority leader I think is to make a decision about whether we 
will continue this evening or put the rest of the amendments off until 
tomorrow.
  Mr. KENNEDY. That is fine. I yield the time, 12 minutes, to the 
Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Let me begin by saying that I very much appreciate the job that has 
been done by the chairman of the committee and the ranking member, and 
I know it has not been easy to put together this kind of consensus. I 
am led to believe 

[[Page S 14872]]
this bill will pass the Senate. However, I have to make my own point of 
view on it clear because what is sauce for the goose is not necessarily 
sauce for the gander, when you begin to change the formula on which 
some of these programs are based.
  I have come to the conclusion that I must oppose this bill. I must 
oppose it for basically two reasons. The first is that the bill cuts 
dramatically into the ability of California to provide job training.
  Let me point this out. While the United States added 3 million jobs 
from May 1991 to December 1993, California lost nearly 450,000 jobs 
during that time. As a matter of fact, in the last 5 years, our 
unemployment rate has never dropped below 7 percent, with a high of 10 
percent in 1994.
  So we have more people unemployed in the State of California than 13 
other States have people today. So job training becomes a very 
important factor. Compared to current funding, this bill shifts funds 
from California to other States. Under the revised formula in the 
managers' amendment, almost one-half of all funds of the losing States 
come from California.
  This is a proportion that is very high. I think the No. 1 determinant 
of a job training program should be existing unemployment needs and 
data. Instead, this block grant consolidation bases 10 percent only on 
unemployment. This is a major departure from the way these programs 
were determined in the past.
  My major concern about this bill is that it gives greater weight to 
things other than unemployment, and the bill does not give adequate 
weight to unemployment. So with a 7.2-percent unemployment rate in 
September, while the national rate was 5.6 percent, California will 
lose about $7 million in this bill despite the fact that that is just a 
4-percent reduction. It translates into $7 million based on the change 
in formula application.
  The new managers' amendment drops the 20 percent for AFDC to 10 
percent and increases from 10 percent to 20 percent the weight given to 
poverty. My State, has high rates of AFDC recipients and unemployed 
people. For example, California is home to 18 percent of all AFDC 
recipients. That translates into 909,000 AFDC cases. That translates 
into 2.6 million people on AFDC.
  By deemphasizing AFDC recipients and unemployment with the low-
weighting factor, the bill essentially gives California short shrift. 
Under current law, we receive 14.8 percent of job training funds. Under 
this approach, we will only get 14.2 percent. That is the $7 million 
difference. And it is a big difference.
  Let me mention what has happened in California by way of Federal 
policy. California has struggled through the closing or realignment of 
9 military bases in this round alone following 22 in previous rounds. 
In total, these have eliminated more than 200,000 direct and indirect 
jobs. The closings and realignments have drained about $7 billion out 
of the California economy.
  Corporate defense downsizing has claimed 250,000 layoffs in the past 
5 years, and that is expected to double. So from defense downsizing 
alone, before it is through, in the corporate sector and from base 
closures, California will lose over 1 million jobs. Now, that is 
something this formula does not take into consideration.
  I mentioned California has 18 percent of the country's welfare 
caseload but 12.2 percent of the Nation's population. Now, what does 
this show? It shows that our need is actually higher than the 
population-driven formula number. So this formula and the redesignation 
of formula clearly does not work for California. This is not a case in 
this bill where as a product of consolidating 80 programs, States are 
going to be held harmless. That is not true. The money taken from 
California by this new formula is essentially given to other States 
that have less poverty and less unemployment.
  So it is very hard for me, representing California, to turn around 
and vote for this bill. I am willing to say, sure, we should do our 
fair share, and I voted for the welfare reform bill despite the fact 
that I lost on major amendments that addressed the fact that we have a 
huge immigrant population. That bill will cost California billions of 
dollars.
  Republican Medicare and Medicaid plans will cost California billions 
of dollars. Our own Governor has up to this point indicated he will not 
accept $42 million in Goals 2000 education funds. I cannot understand 
that--$42 million for schools when we have schools that are crumbling, 
elementary schools that have 5,000 youngsters in them, the highest 
class size in the Nation, and he plans to turn down these funds. I am 
hopeful he will reconsider. This is one more diminution of revenues to 
address the needs of 32 million people.
  In summary, I very much recognize the good work done by both Senators 
here and by the committee, and I am appreciative of it. It is just when 
the State takes hit after hit after hit, when other States benefit and 
California with its needs, as has been referenced earlier--base 
closures, earthquakes, fires, riots, you name it--all the things that 
have happened, and when we know that job training is as important as it 
is, to take a loss of over $7 million in this bill, through the 
consolidation of programs and see the money essentially go to other 
States--under a different formula albeit--is very hard for me to do.
  I appreciate the forbearance of the chairman and the ranking member, 
and I appreciate the opportunity to explain my vote.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I am very sensitive to the concerns of 
the Senator from California. She is a very effective advocate for her 
State in wanting to protect, of course, what should come to her State.
  I would just point out that California gets twice what any other 
State gets. The closest States to California are New York and Texas. So 
while California has a large population, a population that has many 
needs, it also is a population that is getting a significant amount in 
this formula. No one knows better than the Senator from California how 
difficult these formula debates are.
  We all want to get as much as we can. I think that when we are taking 
formulas from some 80 programs and combining them into one formula, 
that will be the fairest to most States, it obviously is not an easy 
task.
  But we made 60 percent of the formula focus on population, which I 
think is the fairest way to distribute funds among the States. And the 
Senator from California has already pointed out 20 percent is based on 
poverty, 10 percent is based on the number of welfare recipients and 10 
percent is based on employment.
  I would also suggest that we are going to be continuing to reduce 
appropriations to each of the various programs. I think combining the 
programs as we do provides a greater sense of certainty to the States 
about what they will be receiving. It is also bound to do better under 
a single appropriation than trying to split it up among all of the 
other efforts that really do not provide the continuum of planning and 
certainty that I think is in the work force development legislation.
  We did decrease the emphasis on welfare recipients because the JOBS 
program, which is the job training program for welfare recipients, was 
taken out of the bill during the welfare debate.
  Finally, and most importantly, we put a cap on the maximum amount a 
State can gain or lose. It cannot gain more than 5 percent. It cannot 
lose more than 5 percent.
  California, under this formula, does lose about 4.2 percent. This 
means, I think, that we have tried to again provide a balance over the 
previous year's allocation through the 5-percent provision. That is not 
such a dramatic shift that it cannot be accommodated. I certainly 
realize that some States can be adversely affected. But I believe, all 
in all, that this is the fairest approach that we could devise.
  It is, as I say, very difficult when we try to get into allocations. 
The Senator from California represents a State with a large population, 
and many parts of that population really need some significant 
assistance. It would be my hope that with the moneys that presently are 
going to California, that this one appropriation will be a far more 
effective means of delivering those funds to the State and provide a 
more effective job training system.

[[Page S 14873]]

  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I do not know if the Senator from 
California wishes to respond in any other way to those comments. I will 
be happy to yield any other time that she might need.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in strong general support for the 
Workforce Development Act of 1995. I commend the chairman of the Senate 
Labor and Human Resources Committee, Senator Kassebaum, for her 
tireless efforts over the last several years to restructure our 
vocational education and job training systems. Both the chairman and 
the ranking Democrat of the committee, Senator Kennedy, have made this 
subject a focal point of the committee's deliberations. I supported 
this measure in the Labor Committee, and I continue to support the bill 
here.
  Of course, I do not agree with everything contained in the bill. It 
is a large undertaking and I do have my disagreements with portions of 
it. Later today I will offer an amendment with Senator Pell to adjust 
the funding allocation for adult education activities. I may also 
support one or more of the other amendments that will be offered to the 
bill. However, I consider myself a strong supporter of this effort, and 
I heartily commend Senator Kassebaum for her unwavering efforts to make 
this much needed change a reality.
  Mr. President, I believe this legislation is very badly needed. Let 
me briefly explain why I have reached that conclusion. Since the late 
1960's, the Federal Government has invested huge sums helping people 
find employment through participation in a myriad of employment and 
training programs. From a few limited programs, this effort has now 
ballooned today into a confusing maze of over 160 separate programs. 
The administration of these is scattered across 15 separate Federal 
agencies, with a total cost to the taxpayer of more than $20 billion 
per year. Not surprisingly, Mr. President, these programs are hamstrung 
by duplication, waste and conflicting requirements that too often leave 
program trainees no better off than when they started.
  I am a great believer in job training, and I count the Job Training 
Partnership Act among the legislative achievements of my years in 
Congress. However, the facts that illustrate the problems with our job 
training system, and which demonstrate the need for wide ranging 
reform, are not really in dispute. For example, Mr. President, there 
are more than 60 separate programs targeted at the economically 
disadvantaged. There are 34 literacy programs designed to help that 
same group. The system has six different standards for defining income 
eligibility levels, five for defining family and household income, and 
five for defining what is included in income.
  For me, one of the most distressing aspects of this problem is that 
the system has no effective means of determining whether programs 
really work. The General Accounting Office has released several reports 
on this issue, and its findings have not been encouraging. One GAO 
report studied 62 programs. Of these, fully half had no means of 
checking whether participants obtained jobs after training. During the 
past decade, only seven of those programs were ever evaluated to find 
out whether trainees would have achieved the same outcomes without 
Federal assistance.
  At this point, I need to digress for just a moment to speak about one 
new effort at self-evaluation undertaken this year. The Department of 
Labor has initiated a longitudinal study aimed at answering the 
question whether the Job Corps Program improves the employment 
opportunities and earnings of its participants. I support longitudinal 
studies and have encouraged their use in connection with job training 
program evaluation. However, this particular study, which is being 
directed by Mathematica Policy Research, has a very ugly underbelly 
that I want to explore a bit today.
  This study employs a control group methodology. John A. Burghardt, 
director of the Mathematica project, offered this explanation to me in 
a September 29 letter responding to my inquiry:

       The National Job Corps Study is based on a random selection 
     process in which approximately 11 out of 12 eligible 
     applicants are selected to enter Job Corps, and 1 out of 12 
     eligible applicants is selected for a control group. The 
     control group members are not eligible to enroll in Job Corps 
     for a period of three years (but may do so after three years 
     if they are eligible at that time).

  What this means is that a kid can go through the Job Corps 
application process, qualify, be selected for training, and then be 
told that he or she cannot enroll for 3 years because we want to see 
him or her sink or swim as compared to the other applicants who were 
admitted. This ``twist-in-the-wind'' aspect of the study is 
unconscionable. It may make sense from a social science point of view, 
but it is inhumane in the extreme.
  In my State of Vermont, a young man by the name of Donovan De Leon 
has been caught in the Job Corps study control group. He is 
heartbroken, and his family is in disbelief that he would be asked to 
make this sacrifice. In essence, they feel that the authorities are 
allowing him to fail in order to demonstrate the success that Job Corps 
can bring about. They have asked me if there is not another way to 
conduct this study that does not punish the innocent few in this 
fashion. I have to agree with their view, there must be another way.
  This has just come to my attention and, with the current 
parliamentary situation, I may not be able to do anything to address 
the issue in the context of this bill. However, I will look for a way 
to take on this study either here or in other legislation. Further, I 
suspect that many other Senators, who have youngsters like Donovan De 
Leon in their States, will be of like mind.
  Another problem proving the need for this legislation, Mr. President, 
is the confusion that the patchwork of conflicting programs causes. 
There are no clear entry points and no clear path from one job training 
program to another. The programs targeted for consolidation have 
conflicting eligibility criteria. They apply program incentives that 
are not always compatible with helping individuals find jobs. These 
program requirements may encourage staff to assist individuals who are 
the easiest to serve, rather than the most difficult. There is limited 
coordination across programs. There is no systematic link between 
educational services and job training services.
  Providers of employment and training services range from public 
institutions of higher education to local education agencies; from 
nonprofit community based organizations to private for-profit 
corporations. Further, different programs very often target the same 
client populations. Youth, at-risk youth, veterans, native Americans, 
the poor and dislocated workers all have many programs designed for 
their benefit. Not surprisingly, people have difficulty knowing where 
to begin looking for assistance. As a result, they may go to the wrong 
agency, or worse, give up altogether.
  Employers also experience problems with the multitude of employment 
programs. Employers want a system that is easy to access and that 
provides qualified job candidates. Instead, they must cope with 
solicitations from over 50 programs that provide job referral and 
placement assistance to individuals. Often, employers are not even 
involved in designing programs that should be responsive to their labor 
market needs. There is no clear linkage between economic development 
activities and employment and training programs to help employers meet 
their labor needs. Training programs are a waste of Federal dollars if 
employers cannot hire newly trained workers because their skills do not 
match employer needs.
  Our principal international competitors do a much better job than we 
have matching worker training and skills to the needs of their 
industries and potential employers. The changes initiated in this bill 
are needed to enable us to compete effectively in the international 
arena. If employment and training programs are to succeed, a simple, 
integrated work force development system must be established that gives 
States, local communities, and employers both the assistance and the 
incentives to train real workers for real jobs. The Workforce 
Development Act takes on the challenge of structuring such a system. It 
will enable all segments of the work force to obtain the skills 
necessary to earn wages sufficient to maintain a high quality of 
living. Further, it will insure a skilled 

[[Page S 14874]]
work force that can meet the labor market needs of the businesses of 
each State.
  We are at a defining moment in our Nation's history. The United 
States is still the most productive country in the world. But we are 
losing our edge to other industrialized nations such as Japan and 
Germany as well as other rapidly developing countries such as Taiwan, 
Korea, and China. Our enormous Federal trade deficit is testimony to 
our deficiencies. Over the past 25 years, the standard of living for 
those Americans without at least a 4-year postsecondary degree has 
plunged. This, too, serves as an example of our Nation's declining 
productivity. In the next decade, we will be surpassed as the world's 
foremost economic power if we do not begin to redefine our priorities 
on national, State, and local levels.
  In response to this problem, education must be a top priority and we 
must connect education with the workplace.
  Our international competitors have been leaders in making the 
important link between education and work. Germany, for example, has 
long been a model for vocational education. As early as the sixth 
grade, students opt for a college-prep or vocational education program. 
In Germany's vocational education system, students receive extensive 
training in industry through collaborations with business along with 
pursuit of an academic curriculum.
  Unfortunately, in the United States, misconceptions about vocational 
education abound. Some think of voc. ed as a second rate education for 
students who could not otherwise succeed on a so-called traditional 
academic path. Nothing, could be further from the truth. Vocational 
education courses hold appeal for all students. In my home State of 
Vermont, over 4,500 students participate in vocational education 
courses, of which 12 percent are adults.
  Another misconception is that there are few similarities among 
Federal vocational education and job training programs. In fact, a 
strong voc. ed program is the best kind of job training and should be 
viewed as a major step in the lifelong learning process.
  The Workforce Development Act is a major effort that strongly links 
education with job training. In addition, it also establishes a very 
strong linkage between the three levels of government: local, State, 
and Federal. The bill also calls on the private sector to be a major 
participant in work force development activities.
  S. 143, the Workforce Development Act creates a unified system for 
vocational education and job training programs. The Governor and the 
State education agency work together with State and local panels to 
devise a comprehensive vocational education and job training system 
that will respond to the needs of all those who seek its services. This 
is already being done in my home state of Vermont through the 
establishment of work force investment boards. S. 143 will support a 
strong school-based infrastructure for vocational education of students 
from all age groups, and the foundation for a strong and competitive 
work force.
  The Workforce Development Act emphasizes the important role business 
must play in devising vocational education and job training strategies. 
This past spring, the first detailed American business survey was 
released by the U.S. Department of Education. The study found that ``a 
10 percent increase in the educational attainment of a company's work 
force resulted in an 8.6 percent increase in productivity. Whereas a 10 
percent increase in the value of capital stock such as tools, 
buildings, and machinery only resulted in a 3.4 percent increase in 
productivity.''
  In the book ``Reinventing Education,'' Louis Gerstner, the chairman 
and CEO of IBM, writes:

       Business . . . [i]s not only a major stakeholder in the 
     issue of education quality, it is the only potential source 
     of major institutional pressure on the system. Without 
     business pressure to improve the schools there will be no one 
     else to act. And if no one acts, the schools will ultimately 
     fail to change and fail to prepare our students and citizens 
     adequately for the next century.

  I urge my colleagues to act today and support S. 143, the Workforce 
Development Act.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Kassebaum and the 
Committee on Labor and Human Resources for their work on S. 143, the 
Workforce Development Act. I support this bill, and commend and thank 
the distinguished chairwoman for responding to my concerns regarding 
employment and training programs for veterans and for the disabled.
  Currently, there are 160 Federal job training programs administered 
by 15 different Federal agencies. This bill will consolidate and 
restructure these programs into a single block grant that will go 
directly to the States with a minimum of Federal requirements. By 
eliminating the additional administrative costs of overlapping 
employment training programs at the Federal, State, and local level, 
this bill will drastically reduce the $20 billion spent each year to 
fund these programs. The purpose of S. 143 is not to eliminate the 
opportunities provided by these programs, but to maximize their 
effectiveness through reorganization and consolidation.
  In particular, I am pleased that S. 143 addresses the special needs 
of unemployed individuals with physical or mental disabilities. Under 
title I of the Rehabilitation Act, the Vocational Rehabilitation 
Program has provided special job training to persons with disabilities. 
Of the 160 Federal job training programs, this is the only one that 
targets the special needs of the disabled. This bill recognizes the 
importance of training individuals with disabilities by preserving the 
integrity of the current Vocational Rehabilitation Program. Title I of 
the Rehabilitation Act will be amended so that vocational 
rehabilitation will be coordinated with the comprehensive workforce 
development system. A vocational rehabilitation representative will 
participate in the overall employment and training efforts for each 
State, providing technical assistance on training individuals with 
disabilities. By ensuring that the special needs of the disabled are 
met, S. 143 will strengthen an important service to a valuable element 
of our work force.
  Another significant feature of this bill relates to veterans 
employment. This Nation has a long history of providing assistance to 
our veterans, dating back to colonial days. Since World War I, several 
laws have been enacted to reaffirm and strengthen the Federal 
Government's role in promoting wider employment and training 
opportunities for veterans.
  Currently, the primary programs to assist veterans are those 
administered by the Department of Labor, through the Veterans' 
Employment and Training Service [VETS]. These include the Disabled 
Veterans' Outreach Program [DVOP], the Local Veterans' Employment 
Representative [LVER], and Veterans Employment Program, which are grant 
programs to the States.
  Because of the national interest in veterans' programs, these grant 
programs will continue in their present form. In addition, the 
committee included language in the bill which first, added a veteran 
representative to the State workforce development board; second, added 
a veteran representative to the local workforce development boards; 
third, included veterans in the collaborative process developing a 
State plan; and fourth, designated veterans as a population group for 
benchmark measurement.
  These provisions of the bill will ensure that veterans employment and 
training programs get the priority and visibility they need at a 
national level to address the unique concerns of veterans. At the same 
time, the bill provides that veterans employment and training programs 
will be integrated into the overall strategy, at the state and local 
level, for improving employment and training opportunities.
  Again, I thank Senator Kassebaum for her excellent work on this bill 
and urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, just to put everyone on notice, there 
will soon be a vote, as we had suggested earlier. Just so everyone will 
have a chance to get here in fashion, I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  
[[Page S 14875]]

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I believe, if I am correct, the 
pending vote would be on the Moynihan amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I believe we are prepared to vote.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, would it be agreeable, since we have 
three votes, that the second and third vote be 10-minute votes?
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Yes. I ask unanimous consent that the second and 
third votes be 10-minute votes, with 4 minutes in between for further 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2887

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen] is 
absent due a death in the family.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 482 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Specter
     Thompson
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--45

     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Brown
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Cohen
     Exon
       
  So the amendment (No. 2887) was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2888

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 4 minutes, equally divided, 
on the Grams amendment.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I see the Senator from Minnesota. We 
have 4 minutes evenly divided.
  Mr. GRAMS. I have nothing more to add.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I yield back any time I might have.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield the time and urge support for the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is now on the amendment offered 
by the Senator from Minnesota. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen] is 
absent due to a death in the family.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 483 Leg.]

                                YEAS--97

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Cohen
     Exon
       
  So, the amendment (No. 2888) was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                           Amendment No. 2889

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, could we have order in the Senate so 
that the Senator from Ohio could be heard? There is a brief time limit, 
as I understand it, of 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes equally divided.
  Mr. KENNEDY. May we have order in the Senate so we can hear the 
Senator from Ohio?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. May we have order in the Chamber?
  Mr. GLENN. Madam President, I offer this amendment because I think it 
is important we do not overlook displaced homemakers in this bill. What 
the amendment does is simply incorporate the definition of displaced 
homemaker in currently found law--the Perkins Act, the Higher Education 
Act, and the Displaced Homemaker Self-Sufficiency Act.
  In the bill itself, the current language includes displaced 
homemakers only as a subcategory of dislocated workers. I do not think 
that is good enough.
  My amendment, second, clarifies that employment services for 
displaced workers are permissible--not required by the States, they are 
permissible. Governors and States have the flexibility to decide 
whether displaced homemakers will receive employment services at all.
  Third, my amendment gives States flexibility in providing work force 
education programs for displaced homemakers and single parents. I think 
there was some confusion about that earlier in the debate. The Senator 
from Kansas pointed out in my amendment there is a requirement that 
States give some attention to work force education programs for 
displaced homemakers. However, States do retain total flexibility.
  Also, the amendment adds displaced homemakers to the list of 
populations in the bill for which States need to set or need to require 
performance benchmarks. I think it is very reasonable. Some 17 million 
Americans are displaced homemakers.
  I urge support of this amendment, and I yield the remainder of my 
time to the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support this proposal. If there is any 
group of Americans who are left behind it has been the homemakers, and 
they have to be able to develop the high-level skills needed in order 
to compete in the economy. This does not require an allocation of funds 
by the States, but it does require that the States are going to at 
least have to give some consideration to this program. I think it is 
well justified. I hope it is accepted.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Madam President, I am also a strong supporter of the 
displaced homemaker program, but the amendment of Senator Glenn will 
start an entirely new program. It will create another set-aside effort 
for a particular special category. It is an expanded category because 
it substantially distorts the concept of what was thought of as a 
displaced homemaker by including anyone with a child aged 16 or younger 
who has received AFDC assistance.
  Madam President, I feel strongly that the way we have addressed it in 


[[Page S 14876]]
the bill, by listing it as one of the considerations under dislocated 
workers, which provides a benchmark but does not require it being set 
aside as a special program, is a very important rationale. Otherwise, 
we get right back into trying to serve a special population. If we do 
serve this one, then why should we not serve that one? This would put 
us right back where we started.
  I think expanding the definition is a mistake. I think the 
requirement that it be so defined is a mistake, and I urge opposition 
to the amendment of the Senator from Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is now on agreeing to the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen] is 
absent due to a death in the family.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 484 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--53

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Cohen
     Exon
       
  So the amendment (No. 2889) was rejected.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was rejected.
  Mr. SIMON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Madam President, for the information of Senators, 
there will be no further rollcall votes this evening. However, we will 
continue to debate several amendments this evening. First, we will 
consider the amendment of Senator Craig, from Idaho, that I believe has 
been worked out on both sides.
  Then we will move to debate the amendment of the Senator from 
Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft] followed by, I believe, an amendment offered by 
the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm]. Rollcall votes on those two 
amendments will occur tomorrow, as well as the disposition of the 
amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] and then there 
will be final passage.
  It is my understanding the Senator from Ohio would like to offer a 
few minutes of comments as in morning business.
  Mr. GLENN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 
minutes as in morning business.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. I will not object. How much time does the Senator desire?
  Mr. GLENN. Not more than 5 minutes for a short eulogy.
  Mr. CRAIG. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________