[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.
____________________