[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 157 (Wednesday, October 11, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14962-S14983]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   WORK FORCE DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1995

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 143, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 143) to consolidate Federal employment training 
     programs and create a new process and structure for funding 
     the programs, and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       Kassebaum amendment No. 2885, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Ashcroft amendment No. 2893 (to amendment No. 2885), to 
     establish a requirement that individuals submit to drug 
     tests, and to ensure that applicants and participants make 
     full use of benefits extended through work force employment 
     activities.

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending Ashcroft amendment be set aside for the consideration of the 
amendment being offered by Senator Specter and Senator Simon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2894 to Amendment No. 2885

  (Purpose: To maintain a national Job Corps Program, carried out in 
                partnership with States and communities)

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

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for himself, 
     Mr. Simon, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Johnston, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2894 to amendment No. 2885.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
Amendments Submitted.)
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in the interest of time--and I understand 
my distinguished cosponsor, Senator Simon, will be arriving in the 
Chamber shortly--I will proceed with some of the opening 
considerations.
  This is a carefully crafted amendment which builds upon the work of 
the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Kassebaum. It is 
responsive to concerns raised by the General Accounting Office to 
maintain the Job Corps Program in its current structural form with 
reforms addressing many of the needs identified by Senator Kassebaum 
and the GAO report.
  In my capacity as chairman of the appropriations subcommittee which 
has the responsibility for funding Job Corps, I have been intimately 
familiar with the operation of Job Corps. During the 15 years that I 
have been in the U.S. Senate, I have been an advocate for its 
implementation and have worked to secure funding of almost $1.1 billion 
for the program.
  It is my view, after seeing the application of the Job Corps in my 
home State of Pennsylvania and in other States, after working 
assiduously with my former colleague, Senator Heinz, for the opening of 
a major Job Corps center in Pittsburgh and having seen the successful 
implementation of the other three Job Corps centers in Pennsylvania, 
that the current requirements operating as a Federal program ought to 
be maintained.
  I appreciate the general concept of block grants, but it is a concern 
of 

[[Page S 14963]]
mine that we may be going too far on the block grant concept at the 
outset, especially at a time when we have given the States great 
authority on welfare reform. To lump the funds for Job Corps with the 
other block grants which are being given to the States, in my judgment, 
is an open invitation to have these very important funds on job 
training diverted to other purposes.
  There is no question about the need for a well-trained American work 
force, and there is no question about the importance of people having 
the ability to find jobs. If there is one core answer for the problems 
of crime, it is that people are able to hold a job and support 
themselves. I have long been interested in providing early intervention 
including education, job training, and realistic rehabilitation for 
juveniles and for first-time offenders. I believe that Job Corps goes a 
long way toward achieving that objective.
  The legislation Senator Simon and I have crafted and introduced here 
incorporates many of, if not most of, the remedies which have been 
proposed by Senator Kassebaum, such the provision regarding zero 
tolerance on drugs, alcohol, and violence. We have also responded to 
integrating the Job Corps into the overall work force development 
scheme, which is part of Senator Kassebaum's legislation.
  This amendment works on issues identified by Senator Kassebaum, by 
strengthening State and local ties to the Job Corps, and by requiring 
that any plans to operate a center be submitted to the Governor for 
comment and review prior to submission to the Secretary of Labor. This 
allows for the integration of local interests of the Governor, but not 
total discretion to abolish the Job Corps or to abolish the great 
strides which have been made in so many Job Corps centers.

  The amendment also requires screening and selection procedures for 
participating at-risk youth to be implemented through local 
partnerships and community organizations with the local work force 
development corps and one-stop career centers, again being responsive 
to concerns raised by Senator Kassebaum.
  The Specter-Simon amendment relies on Chairman Kassebaum's national 
audit approach, but we submit that measure calls for the closing of 
five poorly performing centers by September 30, 1997, and five more by 
September 30 of the year 2000. We do allow discretion to the Secretary 
of Labor regarding this important provision which will allow him to 
close additional centers after an appropriate audit.
  In essence, Mr. President, what we are looking at here is very 
extensive work done by the Committee on Labor and Human Resources under 
the direction of my distinguished colleague from Kansas. The GAO has 
identified certain problems which this Senator acknowledges to be true. 
But in the context of block grants being made this year beyond welfare 
such as with Medicaid, it is my judgment and the judgment of the other 
cosponsors, and I think a large part of the Senate, that we ought not 
go too far too fast.
  The Job Corps has been an effective program that ought to be 
corrected, but we ought not allow the States to abolish the program at 
their own discretion. I have total confidence in my State of 
Pennsylvania. However, there are other States where that kind of 
confidence does not exist.
  Now, Mr. President, without really trying to filibuster or speak at 
any undue length, I note the arrival of my distinguished colleague, 
Senator Simon. However, first I yield to my distinguished colleague 
from Utah, Senator Hatch, 4 minutes.
  Mr. HATCH. Thank you. Mr. President, I rise in support of the 
amendment offered by my colleagues, Senators Specter and Simon, to 
maintain the Job Corps as a national program.
  Now I have to say that I understand what the distinguished Senator 
from Kansas is trying to do and I generally support her on this bill.
  With regard to Job Corps, I really do not believe it can work unless 
it is a national program, because much of the Job Corps Program depends 
upon the in-resident training. People coming to the actual Job Corps 
centers, living there, many of these kids culturally deprived, 
economically deprived, child abuse, kids that are in real trouble. This 
is the only program that works or that we have, in essence, for hard-
core unemployed youth, and it does work. It is expensive. On the other 
hand, not nearly as expensive as if these kids wind up on welfare or 
wind up in the drug culture or wind up in the criminal culture of our 
society.
  As my colleagues know, Utah is the home of two outstanding Job Corps 
centers. Wever Basin is a conservation center that is consistently 
rated in the top 10 centers; Clearfield Jobs Corps Center is run under 
contract by the Management Training Corps of Ogden, UT, which has a 
long and stellar history of managing Job Corps programs throughout the 
United States and has been named contractor of the year by the Labor 
Department. We are very proud of Utah's contribution to the Job Corps 
Program.
  The Job Corps itself is unique. It is unlike education and training 
programs offered under the Job Training Partnership Act which I helped 
to author, the Carl Perkins Vocational Act, which I also worked on, or 
any other Federal initiative. First of all, it is geared to those young 
people who have failed in traditional settings and whose traditional 
support systems and often their own families have failed them.
  Second, the Job Corps is primarily, as I said, a residential program. 
It is designed specifically to get these young people out of the 
streets, off the streets, and out of harm's way, away from the 
influences of gangs and drugs and violence. Job Corps centers can 
provide clean, structured, positive, environments, and they do.
  For many young people, it makes little sense for them to spend 8 
hours a day in a constructive learning situation only to return at 5 
p.m. to abusive homes, pressure from unenlightened peers, or the 
temptations of drugs and alcohol.
  Frankly, it would be hard for me to support the Job Corps if it were 
only another job training program. I think I would have great 
difficulty. I cannot justify $1 billion to duplicate something that 
States and local governments are already doing.
  On that score, I think the Senator from Kansas is absolutely right. 
We need consolidation, and we need more State and local flexibility.
  We learned during last year's debate on the crime bill we have over 
150 separate job training and youth development programs, all having 
differing sets of regulations, reporting requirements, and so forth.
  That is a waste of bureaucracy, pure and simple. I want to commend 
the Labor and Human Resources Committee for putting together this bill 
to do something about it. This is a commonsense solution to the 
proliferation of programs and to the needless expenditure of time and 
resources just to keep up with the paperwork.
  But the Job Corps is not just another program. Its residential 
capability makes it different, and I believe the current national 
administration of Job Corps is necessary to promote both continuity and 
accountability. For that reason, I support the Specter-Simon amendment.
  Another reason for supporting this amendment is it deals honestly and 
forthrightly with some of the legitimate criticisms that have been 
raised about Job Corps.
  Again, I commend Senator Kassebaum for holding thorough oversight 
hearings on the Job Corps. The results of these hearings as well as the 
reports from the General Accounting Office and the Labor Department 
inspector general have identified specific areas in which Job Corps 
must improve.
  No program should be immune from congressional inquiry. Any program 
that is doing its job effectively should welcome such hearings. Should 
this amendment carry, I encourage the Labor Department to continue its 
scrutiny of the program in its efforts to improve the identified areas.
  Those of us who support this amendment to maintain Job Corps as a 
national program need to make it clear that this is not a hands-off Job 
Corps vote or license for business as usual. On the contrary, if Job 
Corps remains a national program, it remains subject to national 
oversight, including continual progress reports by the GAO and the 
Labor Department inspector general.
  In this case, however, the way to address these issues is not 
throwing the baby out with the bath water. The Specter-Simon amendment 
makes many important reforms in the Job Corps. 

[[Page S 14964]]

  For starters, the amendment ties the Job Corps more closely to the 
integrated job training system being created by S. 143. This only makes 
sense. Without making Job Corps a State program, we can make sure that 
Job Corps programs are coordinated with other State and local efforts. 
We can also utilize the one-stop career centers to make the Job Corps 
option more available to young people who could benefit from it.
  Again, I want to thank Senators Specter and Simon for providing more 
input for State Governors on this amendment. I believe this change will 
not only solidify cooperation, but will also be an additional check on 
Job Corps contractors.
  I am also encouraged by the codification of Job Corps' guidelines 
concerning behavior by corps members. The zero-tolerance policy on 
drugs, alcohol, and violence must be strictly enforced. Of course, it 
means nothing if it is not.
  By including these provisions in this amendment, we are giving 
congressional weight to the efforts of the Department of Labor and 
individual Job Corps contractors and center directors to ensure the 
state of Job Corps centers. Nothing less than the viability of the 
residential center concept is at stake.
  In short, this is a we-mean-business provision. Students who want to 
turn their lives around should not have to confront the same negative 
influences in Job Corps as they left on the streets behind them.
  Finally, the amendment requires the closure of the 10 worst 
performing centers. We have too many needs and too little money to 
continue to prop up consistently poor performing centers. The costs of 
operating Job Corps centers will continue to go up along with 
everything else. We must make tough decisions about where to make cuts.
  It seems to me that one obvious place to look is the bottom rung of 
the performance ladder. While I applaud the efforts DOL made to enforce 
performance standards, there are still centers that have such a long 
way to go--that it is more economical to close them than to conserve 
resources to maintain program quality at other centers.
  Mr. President, I believe the Specter-Simon amendment is a balanced 
response to the criticisms that have been raised about the program, as 
well as desirable of maintaining the Job Corps as a national program. I 
urge Senators to support the amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank my distinguished colleague from Utah, and 
inquire how much time remains on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes and thirty seconds remain.
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield to my distinguished colleague from Illinois, 
Senator Simon.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania and 
I thank him for sponsoring this amendment and I appreciate the comments 
of Senator Hatch.
  Mr. SPECTER. May I inquire of my colleague from Illinois how much 
time he intends to take? We have had some requests from other Senators.
  Mr. SIMON. If my colleague can give me 5 minutes, that will be great.
  Mr. SPECTER. Five minutes? Fine.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, first of all, we are not talking about the 
Sunday school class of Our Savior's Lutheran Church at Carbondale, IL. 
We are talking about a marginal group of young people: 79 percent high 
school dropouts, 73 percent have never been employed before. While they 
have problems, they have been improving.
  This is the placement rate for the Job Corps. For those who criticize 
it and say only 36 percent graduate, those figures are also gradually 
going up. I point out, U.S. News & World Report just came out with the 
best colleges and universities in the Nation and I notice that Wichita 
State University, a great school in my colleague's State, had a 30-
percent graduation rate. That is not an abysmal rate, when you take a 
look at what is happening. With the placement rate, it is not only that 
you get over 70 percent placed in jobs, it is also that 79 percent--
interestingly the same percentage; these are high school dropouts--79 
percent of the employers speak very highly of these young people who 
are marginal, who have really been struggling.
  In 1991 the National Commission on Children, a bipartisan body of 34 
members wrote, ``We recommend that the Job Corps component of JTPA be 
expanded over the next decade''--not cut back, as this will do, without 
this amendment--``be expanded over the next decade to increase 
participation from its present level of approximately 62,000 a year to 
approximately 93,000 a year.''
  In 1993, the Milton Eisenhower Foundation, commemorating the 25th 
anniversary of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders--
listen to what they have to say, the Milton Eisenhower foundation.

       Next to Head Start, the Job Corps appears to be the second 
     most successful across-the-board American prevention program 
     ever created for high-risk kids.

  What we are being asked to do is automatically cut back on 25 Job 
Corps centers and then block grant. There are areas where block grants 
make sense, but this is sure not one of them. Most States have no 
experience whatsoever in this field. Here we know we have a program 
that is working, is being commended by a great many people.
  I will have printed in the Record a letter signed by Peter Brennan, 
Secretary of Labor under the Nixon administration, Dick Schubert, 
Deputy Secretary of Labor under both the Nixon and Ford administration, 
Bill Usery, Secretary of Labor under the Ford administration, Ray 
Marshall, Secretary of Labor under the Carter administration, Frank C. 
Casillas, Assistant Secretary of Labor under the Reagan administration, 
Malcolm Lovell Jr., Assistant Secretary for Manpower under the Nixon 
administration, and Under Secretary of Labor under the Reagan 
administration, Roger Semarad, Assistant Secretary of Labor under the 
Reagan administration--all them saying we ought to keep the Job Corps.
  I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record at this 
point.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

           [From the Washington Times, Letters to the Editor]

              Killing Job Corps Will Put Young at Jeopardy

       Job Corps is our country's successful national residential, 
     educational and job-training program for at-risk youth. The 
     Workplace Development Act (S.143) puts Job Corps' future, and 
     the young people it serves, in jeopardy.
       If passed, it will close 25 centers and turn over 
     operations of this most comprehensive program to the states. 
     In 30 years, no state has successfully operated such a 
     program. The legislation ignores Job Corps' solid track 
     record and poses a risky alternative.
       This bill, which was amended to the welfare reform bill 
     (H.R.4) is in sharp contract to all other proposed 
     consolidation recommendations.
       Four million young people in the United States need of 
     basic education, job skills and job-placement assistance only 
     Job Corps offers. Most youths who enroll in Job Corps have 
     inadequate education. Most do not have the skills or 
     attitudes needed to find and keep good jobs. All are from 
     poor families.
       As the largest, most comprehensive and cost-effective 
     program of its kind, Job Corps is a solution for 
     disadvantaged youths between the ages of 16 and 24. Seven out 
     of 10 graduates enter jobs or pursue further education. Job 
     Corps should remain a national program because it works, is 
     accessible, cost-efficient, accountable and helps 
     communities.
       The American public, Congress and the Clinton 
     administration should be proud of Job Corps. We implore the 
     members of Congress from other sides of the aisle to continue 
     support for Job Corps as a distinct national program.
     Peter J. Brennan,
         Secretary of Labor, Nixon Administration, New York.
     Dick Shubert,
         Deputy Secretary of Labor, Nixon/Ford Administration, 
           Washington.
     W.J. Usery, Jr.,
         Secretary of Labor, Ford Administration, Washington.
     Ray Marshall,
         Secretary of Labor, Carter Administration, Austin, TX.
     Frank C. Casillas,
         Assistant Secretary of Labor, Reagan Administration, 
           Chicago.
     Malcolm R. Lovell Jr.,
         Assistant Secretary for Manpower, Nixon Administration, 
           Under Secretary of Labor, Reagan Administration, 
           Washington.
     Roger Semarad,
         Assistant Secretary of Labor, Reagan Administration, 
           Leesburg, VA.

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I think the evidence is just overwhelming 
that we should not put the Job Corps on the chopping block. This is a 
program that has some difficulties because you are 

[[Page S 14965]]
dealing with marginal young people, but it works. And when we have a 
program that works we ought to be expanding it and not cutting back on 
it.
  I urge my colleagues to accept the amendment that Senator Specter and 
I have introduced. I think it is in the national interest.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from 
Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today very reluctantly to oppose 
the amendment from my friends from Pennsylvania and Illinois and Utah. 
I say reluctantly because I totally agree with their objectives and I 
totally agree with their analysis of what is one of the gravest 
problems this country faces and that is the growing number of young 
people in this country who are literally growing up in a society that 
is separate from the rest of us.
  Someone has come up with the term ``at-risk youth.'' You see these 
at-risk youth when you go into a Job Corps center site, as I have in 
Dayton, OH, or in Cincinnati or in Cleveland. You talk to these kids--
really not kids, young adults--and you find they have grown up in a 
family where there is one parent, that one parent may be an alcoholic 
or drug addict, where no one in the family has worked for years--where 
no one has in the neighborhood, really. They do not seem to know 
anybody in the neighborhood who has worked. That is not true in every 
case, but it is not atypical.
  The thing we have to keep in mind, though, is when we go into a Job 
Corps site and see these young people, for every one you see in a Job 
Corps site there are 10, 100, maybe 1,000, maybe 10,000 more out there 
in every one of our States, so we are just seeing a small number of 
these individuals.
  So I applaud the purpose of this amendment but I differ in the 
approach. We looked at this issue at length in the Labor Committee. The 
committee adopted an amendment that I offered that ensures that 
approximately 40 percent of the money that will be spent at the State 
level will be spent for these at-risk youth and that we will not allow 
the States to cream off the top, to just help those young people who 
are between jobs, to help just those in the middle class, but that the 
States will be required --the total package provides $2.1 billion that 
has to be spent on the at-risk youth.
  Now we move to the question how do we spend this money the most 
effectively? There are those who look at Job Corps and say, ``Do away 
with it.'' They cite the statistics of crime, drug abuse, lack of any 
definable results or quantitative results. There are others who say 
very eloquently, ``The Job Corps does work and we have to have a 
residential facility.'' I believe the Senator from Kansas, who chairs 
our committee, has come up with a very rational compromise and it is a 
middle position. It is a position, I believe, that marries the best of 
both worlds.
  What does it do? It says we understand there are problems with the 
Job Corps. We are going to try to fix those. It says, of the 111 or so 
Job Corps sites--we have eight more coming on, that makes 119--we are 
going to take 25, the worst, in an objective measure, and those will be 
eliminated. But the rest will stay in existence.
  I want Members who are listening back in their offices to keep this 
in mind. They will continue and they will continue under the authority 
and the power of the States. Any State that might lose a Job Corps 
site--25. For example, let us say Ohio might lose one. It may. I do not 
know. But that money would continue to flow to the State and that money 
would have to be spent for at-risk youth. It could not be creamed off. 
It could not be used by the State for any other purpose but to target 
this at-risk youth. That, to me, is very, very significant.
  I think it is important to point out exactly where this bill stands 
now. As a result of the amendment that I offered and other changes that 
were made, and the good work of the chairman, the Workforce Development 
Act now targets $2.1 billion of the funding on Jobs Corps and other 
education and training programs directly on the problems of at-risk 
youth.
  States have to spend roughly 40 percent of job training dollars in 
this bill on the at-risk youth problem. They cannot cream off the easy 
part for the job training problem. They have to tackle the tough cases.
  The bill provides us a framework based initially on a residential 
concept for Job Corps. But it requires that a major portion of this 
money be targeted at this at-risk youth population.
  I believe that this legislation now represents a rational compromise. 
In this compromise, States must target the at-risk youth population. 
But along with this requirement, or mandate, they are given 
flexibility--flexibility that I think is essential if we are to empower 
the States and to encourage the States to develop a full-fledged 
program for at-risk youth.
  States should not be in a position to turn and say, ``Well, the at-
risk youth is the Federal Government's problem. The at-risk youth is 
what we have Job Corps for.'' I do not think so. I think it is much 
better if it is integrated to the State's entire program to deal with 
all of the at-risk youth in the State.
  This compromise keeps most Job Corps centers in place. But it shifts 
control of the centers to the States to promote a greater focus on 
local jobs. The goal of the compromise is to make sure States see 
helping at-risk youth as an integral, very significant part of their 
mission.
  The specific issue of the future of the Job Corps Program is of great 
concern to myself and my colleague from Pennsylvania and other Members 
on the floor. Some people, as I said, want to abolish Job Corps. Some 
want to keep it with the status quo and make some minor changes. I 
believe the compromise that we have come up with will actually rescue 
Job Corps and start it down the path of truly fixing it.
  It is clear that many of these at-risk youth that I have talked about 
will continue to need the kind of residential education that Job Corps 
provides. I think we need to keep that option open. That is why Job 
Corps was not abolished in this compromise. That is why the Labor 
Committee bill provides for a great deal of flexibility in how this 
fund for at-risk youth will be used. Indeed, the bill cures what has 
been one of the major complaints about the Job Corps program in the 
past--the fact that Job Corps is a nationally administered program that 
does not respond to the needs of the local labor markets. I will come 
back to that in a moment.
  One of the key insights into a recent American political discourse is 
that we need to rebuild the sense of community. My friend from Indiana, 
Senator Coats, has talked about that. He has spoken eloquently on the 
need to rebuild the ties that make for a successful civil society.
  But let us look at a typical Job Corps experience. A young woman or 
young man from Detroit, MI, may be sent to a Job Corps Center in 
Dayton, OH, and that Job Corps Center in Dayton, OH, may be run by a 
contractor from Utah. Then when that young man or that young woman goes 
out to find a job, the agency that is charged with helping that person 
find a job may be based in Atlanta, GA. You lose the sense of community 
which I think most people truly understand is essential if the person 
in the Job Corps is not only going to be trained but if they are going 
to have a real job afterward, 6 months or 12 months later, because that 
is the true test of whether it works or not.
  The problem with the current system is that very few people involved 
in this process have any real ties to the local community or to the 
particular young adult being trained.
  This is an extremely disjointed process, not a focused, locally 
oriented approach. More often than not, the young person does not 
remain in the community where a Job Corps center is. The person quite 
naturally tends to go home. I think a truly successful Job Corps 
Program should look at that young person not just as another client who 
is shipped somewhere, but as a member of the local community.
  That is why streamlining the job training program into block grants 
to the States is how we have done it in this bill. We have also decided 
to shift the Job Corps Program to the States. There is a much greater 
chance that Job Corps will succeed in rescuing an at-risk youth if that 
program is tapped 

[[Page S 14966]]
into a local community--local youth, local employers, and local jobs. 
The Job Corps needs to be part of a focused, comprehensive, locally 
oriented system. I think that is very, very important.
  So let me conclude by saying, Mr. President, that everyone on this 
floor--as I look around at all the Members-- has a great concern about 
at-risk youth. The only issue today is how we best serve these at-risk 
youth.
  I believe that the continuation of Job Corps--and an improved Job 
Corps providing for residential services but integrated into a State 
system--is really the only way that we can go. It is a rational 
approach. It is a rational compromise. I think it has a much greater 
chance of success than continuing the current system.
  So, I ask my colleagues--again, I say this quite reluctantly--to 
defeat this amendment and assure them that when they look at this bill 
they will find it is a bill that has considered at-risk youth, and not 
only has considered at-risk youth but has put a star behind that term, 
and say we care, we care about the at-risk youth in this society, and 
that this Congress, this Senate, is not going to forget about them but, 
even more importantly, the States are not either.
  Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twelve minutes and thirty seconds.
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from 
Rhode Island with whom I served for many years on the authorizing 
committee, and who knows the subject very well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague.
  Mr. President, when the subject of Job Corps was being discussed on 
the Senate floor at an earlier time, I spoke about solutions to,

       The important problems and challenges facing our young 
     people: the need for originality and new ideas; the need for 
     knowledge to combat ignorance; and, above all, the need for 
     broadening the horizons for youth, so that each young man and 
     young woman in the United States can develop the best of his 
     or her talents in a climate of maximum opportunity.

  I delivered those remarks in March 1964 during debate on President 
Johnson's poverty program, which created, among others, the Job Corps 
Program. Thirty-one years later, the problems and challenges are 
surprisingly, and unfortunately, the same. I doubt any of my colleagues 
would disagree with the importance of allowing our young people to 
develop to the best of their ability.
  For many, colleges and universities are the places they go to develop 
their talents; still others find vocational schools or service in our 
Armed Forces to be the place. Regrettably, Mr. President, there remain 
some young men and women who do not even know what their talent is.
  They are referred to as poverty youth. In reality, they are young 
Americans who, through no fault of their own, lack the skills needed to 
get an education or find a job.
  It is for these people that Job Corps was created, has flourished, 
and must continue. It is just as important today as it was 34 years ago 
to do all we can to look for new ideas to old problems; to replace 
ignorance with knowledge; and most important, allow all of our young 
people, no matter who they are, where they live, or how much they make, 
to discover their special talent and go on to develop that talent.
  This is why I am a cosponsor of and will vote for the Simon-Specter 
amendment. I am pleased the amendment calls for a review and closing of 
any centers that are not serving their students. I am also pleased 
about the strong emphasis the amendment places on community 
involvement. The hearings held by the Senate Labor and Human Resources 
Committee certainly pointed out the strong, positive impact an involved 
community can have on the success of a Job Corps Center. Most 
important, I am pleased that the Simon-Specter amendment keeps the Job 
Corps Program as a national program. This, I feel, is vital.
  My only lingering regret, Mr. President, is that my own State of 
Rhode Island is one of four States which so far does not have a Job 
Corps Center of its own. I continue to hope that this omission can be 
addressed in the context of strengthening and improving the program.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I would like to yield 7 minutes to the 
Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I 
believe the intent to preserve the Job Corps is a good intent. The Job 
Corps in the main has been a program that has had a substantial amount 
of success. However, the purpose of S. 143, of this piece of 
legislation, is to give not just the States more flexibility but 
provide, for the first time, taxpayers with a real system of 
accountability, requiring States to develop a plan, present benchmarks 
for that plan and suffer monetary penalties if they do not meet the 
objectives under the plan.
  This says we are not just going to block grant money back to the 
States and allow them to willy-nilly spend the money. This legislation 
creates, for the first time, an accountable system and allows Governors 
and people in the States to preserve their Job Corps Program, but it 
says that we are going to transfer primary responsibility for any Job 
Corps Center to the State in which the Job Corps Center is located.
  States rather than the Federal Government under this legislation, we 
believe, are in the best position to manage and operate these centers 
and, most important, to integrate them with their statewide work force 
development system.
  I would actually make the case that this is a good area for us to 
begin to consider what kind of swaps we might be able to work with the 
States entirely. We are not only talking about giving the States 
responsibility. We are collecting a lot of taxpayer money here and 
shipping it back to the States to do a function that I believe is 
largely something that the States do better than the Federal Government 
anyway, which is to work with small business, to work with big 
business, to work with educational institutions to try to develop 
programs that will help individuals acquire skills they need to either 
get in the work force for the first time, which is typically what Job 
Corps does, or to acquire the skills to enable them to move up the 
economic ladder.
  I actually would love to get into a debate, into a discussion as we 
talk about shifting more power back to the States about whether we want 
to not just shift power back to the States but whether we want to shift 
all funding responsibilities. I think it was a mistake for us to block 
grant, for example, Medicaid and give Medicaid back to the States under 
a block grant program. I did not support the welfare bill because I do 
not think income maintenance programs can be run by the States. But 
some kind of a swap as we are trying to decide what does the Federal 
Government do well and what do the States do well it seems to me to be 
appropriate rather than just assuming that everything ought to be 
shifted back to the States.
  Some things the Federal Government does quite well. One of them, 
however, Mr. President, I do not believe is in the area of job training 
and economic development. There I believe very strongly the States 
should be given the principal responsibility and be given not just 
flexibility but as long as they are asking us for tax dollars that we 
on behalf of our taxpayers need to hold them accountable for what is 
going on.
  Again, this legislation, S. 143, as I said yesterday when I spoke on 
it, is one of the very small number--in fact, I only have two on my 
list right at the moment--of changes in the law where I am certain a 
couple of years from now people on the street in Nebraska are going to 
come up and say, ``You know, that work force development legislation, I 
have a job today because of that. I am earning $5,000 more a year 
because of that. My family survived as a consequence of that 
legislation.''
  This piece of legislation will produce real change that people will 
appreciate at the local level, where they are asking increasingly, what 
is this Congress all about? What are you doing that is relevant to our 
lives?
  The other one, I point out again for emphasis, is S. 1128, the health 
insurance reform legislation. Mr. President, 

[[Page S 14967]]
25 million Americans will benefit if we end the practice of excluding 
people on the basis of preexisting conditions and allow people to port 
their insurance from one job to another.
  Last year, in the debate over health care, it seemed no one was for 
that, and this year it has become popular to suggest it; 25 million 
Americans benefit from that. Again, by coincidence, it is sponsored by 
the Senator from Kansas and the Senator from Massachusetts. S. 143, 
like S. 1128, will enable you in townhall meetings to have people stand 
up and say: This one made a difference in my life. My family is 
stronger; my income is higher; I have that job; I have adjusted to the 
marketplace; I have skills and am able to do things I was not able to 
do before.
  So those who are wondering whether or not you are voting against Job 
Corps, you are not voting against Job Corps by voting against this 
amendment. Job Corps is still alive under S. 143. We do not kill Job 
Corps with this proposal.
  I have a letter--I suspect all my colleagues do--with a very 
impressive list of many of my friends here in Washington, DC, advocacy 
groups urging me to vote for this amendment. I will vote against this 
amendment and say to my friends and those at-risk youths I believe the 
States will in fact do a much better job.
  We have a Job Corps facility in Nebraska. My guess is my Governor is 
going to say it does a good job; they are going to integrate it into 
their plan; they are not going to shut down the Job Corps Program in 
Crawford, NE, but they are going to integrate it into their development 
program. If it fails to do the job, Mr. President, they will know that 
they cannot come back to Washington and have the Congress bail them 
out. They will know if they do not do the job, they will have to turn 
to their legislature and their own Governor and try to make a losing 
program still get funding by the taxpayers.
  So I believe this amendment should be defeated because I think it 
actually undercuts long-term the support for the Job Corps Program. It 
is much more likely that this particular piece of legislation does the 
right kind of empowering, does empower people at the local level, 
empowers small business to participate in economic development markets, 
enables us to turn to taxpayers and say these 90 different job training 
programs have been consolidated into one and we have tough requirements 
for benchmarking and tough requirements for standards. You know that 
you are going to get your money's worth in this program and much more 
likely that taxpayers will be satisfied as well.
  Perhaps most important for me, S. 143 is going to empower people at 
the local level to get involved, trying to figure out what we can do to 
make sure that half of the graduating class that goes directly into the 
work force has the skills that the market says they need in order to 
get a job.
  Increasingly, I talk to citizens who say: We are cut out of it; we do 
not seem to have much power, much opportunity. We try to get to our 
school boards to get help but we are not able to.
  Mr. President, I request 2 additional minutes.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I yield the Senator 2 minutes.
  Mr. KERREY. I say in conclusion, Mr. President, I think the amendment 
is well intended and I understand there is strong support for the Jobs 
Corps. I have been a strong supporter of Job Corps as well. But it is 
much more likely to survive if the taxpayers say: We are getting our 
money's worth if it is integrated into the State plan for job training 
and economic development.
  So I hope my colleagues who support Job Corps will oppose this 
amendment and make sure that S. 143 does in fact empower the people at 
the local level.
  Mr. SPECTER. Will my colleague yield for a question on my time?
  I just have one very brief question. I inquire of my colleague from 
Nebraska if he would see a difference between the Job Corps in a State 
like Nebraska, administered by a Governor like Governor Kerrey, or a 
State like Ohio, by my distinguished colleague, Senator DeWine, 
compared to some of the other States in the United States where with a 
block grant we might not be so confident that we have Job Corps 
maintained?
  Mr. KERREY. It is entirely possible that you are going to get 
situations where Governors are less friendly to the Job Corps than I 
would be or he might be, I say to the Senator from Pennsylvania, but 
one of the things that I have a difficult time with in general when it 
comes to Federal programs is people at the local level say: We know 
this thing is not working but the power to determine whether it 
survives reverts back to Washington.
  And again I wish to say for emphasis there are some things that I do 
not want to shift to the States. I do not want to shift income 
maintenance to the States. I do not want to shift Medicaid to the 
States. I would like to empower people to make more decisions when it 
comes to health care, empower them to make more decisions. I do not 
want the Federal bureaucracies to control all the decisions, but when 
it comes to job training and economic development I really see it as a 
State role.
  I would love to get into a discussion of how we get a swap with the 
States taking over things that are Federal responsibilities but saying 
to them where it is a State responsibility, you are going to be 
required to come up with your own money.
  I would say to the Senator from Pennsylvania as well----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
  Mr. KERREY. I know from my own State of Nebraska, when people 
campaign for the office of Governor--I suspect it is similar to 
Pennsylvania--the No. 1 question they have to answer is, What are you 
going to do to create jobs?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KERREY. Economic development is so important, no Governor is 
going to get away with shutting down a Job Corps center that is doing a 
good job.
  Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Harkin be added as 
a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to yield myself 7 minutes on 
the bill. And then I will yield 5 minutes on the bill to the Senator 
from Iowa.
  I want to speak in support of the amendment. I must say I was in such 
agreement with my good friend, Senator Kerrey, yesterday, and I am at 
difference with him today. We are talking about the same subject 
matters. But I very much appreciate his longstanding interest in terms 
of the training programs that have been developed out of the Human 
Resources Committee under the leadership of Senator Kassebaum.
  I want to also pay tribute to Senator DeWine, although I differ with 
him on this issue as well. He has spent an enormous amount of time as a 
Lieutenant Governor and in our committee in working across the partisan 
lines to bring focus and attention to at-risk youth in this country and 
has made it one of his priorities. I think all of us that care about 
the issue of at-risk youth are very much in his debt at this time and 
look forward to working with him down the road on other ways that we 
can be more effective.
  Mr. President, I urge the Senate to support the Job Corps amendment. 
The committee bill on this issue is a classic case of throwing out the 
baby with the bathwater. I strongly support the basic purpose of the 
bill, which is to consolidate the current overlapping and often 
confusing array of Federal job training and job education programs. But 
it makes no sense to eliminate the Job Corps, which is a program that 
is not broken and does not need this kind of fixing. The Job Corps is a 
Federal program that works, and it deserves to remain a Federal 
program. It works extremely effectively to bring hope and opportunity 
into the lives of tens of thousands of disadvantaged young men and 
women every year. And it works extremely cost effectively as well.
  A study in the 1980's found that the Job Corps saves $1.46 in future 
costs for crime and welfare for every $1 invested in the program. And 
there have been more than 200 IG reviews of the Job Corps Program, and 
they have been overwhelmingly in support of the Job Corps Program over 
the period of these last 30 years.
  I will just quote briefly the IG report of 1991 where it says, ``85 
percent of the investment in Job Corps resulted in 

[[Page S 14968]]
participants receiving measurable benefits.'' The GAO report of 1995: 
``Job Corps is serving its intended population. Employers who hire Job 
Corps students were satisfied with the students' work habits and 
technical training.''
  Mr. President, the Job Corps has its problems, like any social 
program, dealing with the difficult challenges of assisting 
disadvantaged youth and helping them to become productive and 
responsible citizens. We can deal with the program's problems. No one 
is trying to sweep them under the rug. But it would be very wrong and 
highly counterproductive to use these problems as a pretext to turn the 
entire Job Corps over to the States and abandon the many positive 
features that far outweigh the problems in this innovative Federal 
program.
  Any fair assessment of the Job Corps demonstrates its success. The 
Job Corps is a unique residential program that provides education and 
training for at-risk youth. It is national in scope. A third of Job 
Corps participants are enrolled in centers outside their own States. 
That means Job Corps can offer a real choice to young men and women 
about the kind of careers they want. If the Job Corps center in their 
State does not provide that kind of training, they can enroll in a 
center in another State that does. If we fragment this national focus 
and turn the Job Corps into 50 separate programs, at the option of each 
State, the obvious advantage of this impressive national capability 
will be lost.
  There is no question that Job Corps has succeeded in fulfilling its 
mission. In 1994, 73 percent of all the Job Corps participants were 
placed in jobs, joined the military, or went on to some form of further 
education. I will point out, in response to points that were made 
earlier about the issues of accountability for the Job Corps that 
included in the Specter-Simon amendment, there are required evaluations 
which look at placement rates, verified after 13 weeks, learning gains, 
placement wages, dropout rates, enrollees obtaining GED's--all 
different assessments and evaluations of the programs so that we will 
have a closer review of the success of the programs and also its 
challenges.
  Finally, there is talk by some opponents of Job Corps of eliminating 
excessive Federal bureaucracy. The total bureaucracy consists of a 
grand total of about 190 officials. Some bureaucracy. It should be 
obvious to everyone that three to four officials per State cannot 
manage the Job Corps if we turn the program over to the States. The 
committee bill is a prescription for increased Job Corps bureaucracy, 
not reduced bureaucracy.
  For all these reasons I urge the Senate to save the Job Corps. This 
is a vote for a Federal program that works. It is a vote for hope and 
jobs and opportunity for young men and women across the country who 
need our help the most. For them Job Corps is a lifeline. The Senate 
should preserve it, not cut it off.
  Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for yielding me this time off the 
bill. I did want to support the amendment and be a cosponsor of the 
amendment because I feel so strongly that Job Corps has done an 
outstanding job. There have been problems. Yes, there have been 
problems. I believe that we have addressed those problems. I believe 
this amendment addresses those problems.
  But just to arbitrarily close 25 centers around the United States and 
then to turn this back over to the States with almost no benchmarks at 
all, I think would be the death knell for Job Corps, and it would be 
the end of it. Job Corps, as has been stated so many times, I am sure, 
by people who have spoken on the floor of the Senate here, Job Corps 
serves our most disadvantaged youth. These are not young people who 
have gone through high school and gotten good grades, maybe got a job; 
these are hardcore, unemployed, disadvantaged youths. To close them 
down would be a big mistake.
  Despite the disadvantages of the youths that come into this program, 
the program has succeeded. The last comprehensive study of Job Corps 
found each $1 invested returns a $1.46. Last year, 73 percent of Job 
Corps students found jobs or entered higher education after leaving the 
centers. I challenge any State-run job training program to match that 
kind of figure. You cannot find it anywhere--73 percent. Now, they may 
place them, but in the Job Corps center that we have in Iowa, 95 
percent of those found jobs with an average hourly wage of $6.20 an 
hour, and not minimum wage, more than minimum wage.
  We have a Job Corps center in Denison, IA. I have to tell you, Mr. 
President, when this thing first started in Iowa, the Job Corps center, 
they took over an old junior college that had gone under. When it first 
started in Denison--Denison is a small community, community of about 
6,700 people--when they thought about this Job Corps center there and 
they were going to bring these inner-city kids in and kids who had been 
on drugs, there was a public outcry, and it just about did not succeed 
in being located in Denison.
  Finally, some cooler heads prevailed. They opened it up. And I can 
tell you, Mr. President, it has so much support in Denison and the 
surrounding countryside you cannot believe it. I know my friend from 
Nebraska was saying that we have got to get more local level 
involvement. You cannot get more local level involvement than what you 
have in the Denison, IA, Job Corps Center and, I daresay, a lot of 
other Job Corps centers around the country because they work closely 
with businesses in the community.
  They are taught by people with skills in different occupations. They 
go out and work among people, so they get to understand what it is like 
to be in the work force. And the people in the Denison area have 
supported it overwhelmingly since it has come in. Five hundred kids a 
year go through there. And I might add it is one of the handful of 
centers that provides child care for students.
  The child development center there opened in 1993. It allows parents 
to keep their children with them while they are enrolled in training 
programs. So a young mother, maybe with one or two kids, can come 
there, go through the program and keep her children with her. Children 
from 6 months to 2 years are in a developmental child care program. And 
at the Denison Job Corps Center, for children 3 to 5, we have a Head 
Start Program.
  So, again, it is fully integrated with developmental for early 
childhood, Head Start, and allow these kids to stay there with their 
parents.
  As I said, Job Corps in Denison is the third largest employer. It has 
121 full-time employees and a $3.4 million annual payroll. And the 
center gives back to the community. It makes civic contributions. They 
built a new press box at the high school athletic field. The kids went 
out and built it. They contributed to the community. They built a new 
stage for the Donna Reed Performing Arts Festival that we have annually 
to commemorate the hometown of Donna Reed.
  So, again--I do not know--when I hear people say that we need more 
local involvement, you cannot get more local involvement than what we 
have in the Job Corps Center in Denison, IA. We talk about turning it 
back to the States so they do not come to the Federal Government when 
they get in trouble. The fact is, under the bill, if you turn it back 
to the States with almost no benchmarks, they would not run to the 
Federal Government because there is nothing for them to meet.
  But under the amendment, we set up benchmarks, we set up strict 
guidelines on drug usage and that type of thing, and we make sure that 
they meet certain stringent guidelines. So we have, I believe, 
addressed the problems that we have confronted in some Job Corps 
centers.
  I am not going to stand here and say every Job Corps center has been 
the epitome of correctness and that they have been run right. But to 
just take a blunt meat-ax approach and cut them out is, I believe, the 
wrong way to go. I believe this amendment is the right way to go. It 
solves the problems. It keeps the centers going. It, indeed, closes 10, 
but not the 25, and it sets up the strict guidelines we need to make 
sure we do not have these problems in the future.
  I urge those who want to make sure that we instill in these young 
people 

[[Page S 14969]]
family values and a work ethic so they can get out of the environment 
they are in and put them in a new work environment in a community, you 
cannot beat the Job Corps for what they are doing. It is one of the 
best investments we have ever made. I certainly hope we do not do away 
with it, and I support the amendment wholeheartedly.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if the distinguished sponsor of the 
bill, Senator Kassebaum, would yield, I would like to ask her a few 
questions about the impact this bill would have on Kentucky. Would the 
Senator yield for some questions?
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Yes, I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Our State has six Job Corps Centers. These centers 
currently receive a total of approximately $51 million annually to 
operate. Does this bill target any of the Kentucky facilities for 
closure?
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. This bill does not target any particular facility, in 
Kentucky or elsewhere, for closure.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The bill does provide that 25 centers will be closed 
over a 2-year period. How will the decisions on closure be made.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. The bill mandates that there be a national audit, 
over a 2-year period, of all Job Corps Centers, and that the national 
board make recommendations, based on objective performance criteria, to 
the Secretary of Labor. The national board will recommend that the 10 
worst performing centers be closed in the first year after the audit, 
and that 15 additional poorly performing centers be closed in the 
following year.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will particular States, for example, with a 
disproportionate number of centers compared to the State's population, 
be targeted for closures?
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. No, there is no national formula established in this 
bill, based on geographic or population considerations. For allocating 
Job Corps funds, the only factors will be performance related. In fact, 
section 161(c) specifically provides that each State will continue to 
receive the same amount of funds for Job Corps even if any of the 
States' centers are closed. In that case, the State could then use 
those funds for other at-risk youth activities.
  Among the factors that will be examined to determine the closure of 
centers are: Whether the center has experienced high incidents of 
criminal or violent activity; the physical condition of the facility; 
the degree to which the center has State and local support; and the 
costs of the center compared to other centers.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Senator from Kansas for her explanation.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I appreciate the interest of the Senator from 
Kentucky in the impact of this bill upon his State. And, I would point 
out that, in the section of the bill dealing with other training 
programs, the State of Kentucky, according to the Congressional 
Research Service, will receive more funds than it currently receives. 
The reason for this is that the bill alters the funding formula for job 
training programs, and based on the new formula, Kentucky should 
receive a 4.2 percent increase in job training funds.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Senator for her assistance.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I speak today in support of the Simon-
Specter amendment to the Workforce Development Act, which seeks to save 
one of America's most important programs--Job Corps.
  For over three decades, the Job Corps has received bipartisan support 
and has created a tradition of success. In this time, Job Corps has 
empowered 1.6 million of America's disadvantaged youth to become 
responsible, tax-paying citizens.
  Job Corps has proved its worth as a time-tested national program for 
at-risk youth. it is the only program offering a unique combination of 
residential education, support services, job training, and placement 
services.
  This amendment reflects inspector general and Department of Labor 
testimony and General Accounting Office data that do not suggest or 
recommend State block granting as a means to improve Job Corps 
accountability.
  The Workforce Development Act, as it currently exists, would close 25 
Job Corps centers, one-fourth of the total Job Corps network. This 
represents an abandonment of $500 million in Federal facilities and the 
loss of thousands of jobs. The act would also currently end universal 
access to Job Corps for students and creates State restrictions for Job 
Corps programs.
  The Specter-Simon amendment takes a much more rational approach to 
Job Corps consolidation. The amendment would simply close 10 Job Corps 
centers--5 by 1997 and 5 more by the year 2000, providing weaker 
performing centers time to improve. It would preserve Job Corps as a 
national program and protects national partnerships that provide 
essential support, training and job placement services along with 
universal access to Job Corps for all eligible at-risk youth, 
regardless where they reside.
  Last year, 73 percent of Job Corps students found jobs with an 
average wage of $5.50 or returned to higher education after leaving the 
program. These numbers speak volumes about the success of the Job Corps 
Program.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to seek out Federal programs 
within each of their States that have proven track records. This is 
clearly one of those programs that has year-in and year-out provided 
the necessary direction of millions of disadvantaged young Americans.
  I applaud the work of my colleagues--Senators Simon and Specter, for 
their leadership, which strives to maintain a program so vital in each 
of our States. I believe this amendment will improve a Job Corps 
Program already demonstrating continued success.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I would like to lay out in some detail 
why I have reached the conclusion that something is seriously wrong 
with the Job Corps Program.
  I know this program has broad bipartisan support. The Secretary of 
Labor has called Job Corps the crown jewel of all Federal training 
programs. We have a Job Corps Center in Kansas, and I initially 
supported that effort.
  I strongly support the concept of a program that truly helps at-risk 
youth finish their high school education, obtain marketable job skills 
and get a job on which they can build a career. But Job Corps, as it is 
not operated by the Department of Labor, falls far short of delivering 
on those promises.
  For years, Job Corps has claimed it places 80 percent of its 
participants in jobs, the military, or in higher education. I was 
surprised to learn, however, that half of the students dropped out in 
their first 6 months. Despite the fact that more than 50 percent of the 
students find their own jobs, Job Corps claims the majority of those 
dropouts as successful placements.
  I also learned that Job Corps is by far the most expensive job 
training program operated by the Federal Government, with a budget of 
$1.2 billion. That translates to a cost of $23,000 for each student 
placement, far more than the average State college tuition.
  A year ago last June, I asked for a briefing by the Department of 
Labor inspector general, which has been monitoring Job Corps regularly 
for the last several years. One of the most troubling of the inspector 
general's findings was Job Corps' extremely high dropout rates. One-
third of new trainees drop out within the first 90 days and, as I said, 
50 percent leave within 6 months.
  The IG also found that only 12 percent of students were being placed 
in jobs requiring the skills they learned in the program. The vast 
majority of jobs found by Job Corps graduates were low-paying, low-
skill positions.
  The inspector general also questioned Job Corps' claimed placement 
rate of 80 percent. The IG found the actual number was closer to 60 
percent. However, even this number is misleading because a job 
placement is defined by Job Corps as being on the job for only 20 
hours.
  In addition to poor performance and high dropout rates, the IG found 
very little accountability for Job Corps operators. The Department of 
Labor rarely took action to improve or upgrade centers that performed 
poorly year after year after year.
  The inspector general also told me about an aspect of Job Corps about 
which, up until that time, I knew very little about. In addition to 
operating Job Corps Centers, the program also contracts out to 
employers and labor unions for advanced training programs for Job Corps 
graduates.
  The inspector general examined one of these advanced training 
programs 

[[Page S 14970]]
for computer skills and found the cost to be almost $37,000 per 
student. Yet, the contractor placed only 9 percent of the students in 
jobs using the data processing skills they learned in the program.
  Almost half of the program's students dropped out and were not 
placed. Nearly one-fourth of so-called successful placements last less 
than a year in the job. And yet, Mr. President, this contractor had his 
contract renewed without competitive bidding.
  In fact, none of these advanced training contracts--worth over $40 
million--are subject to competitive bidding. Again, we found poor 
performance and little accountability within Job Corps.
  On October 4, 1994, the first oversight hearing in more than a decade 
on Job Corps was held by the Senate Labor and Human Resources 
Committee, and then-Chairman Kennedy, at my request.
  The essence of the testimony presented by the Department of Labor was 
that Job Corps was still an extremely successful program with minor 
problems. Reports of violence in the centers were dismissed as minor 
occurrences blown out of proportion.
  Yet following the oversight hearing, I began to receive disturbing 
phone calls and letters from parents, former Job Corps students and Job 
Corps employees about the violence that existed throughout the program.
  On December 13, 1994, Job Corps provided me with information on 
serious incidents of violence and drug use on Job Corps centers. I was 
told that 23 homicides were committed by Job Corps students between 
1992 and 1994.
  For the same period, there were nearly 300 sexual assaults, 993 
incidents of violence, and 416 serious drug-related incidents, all 
taking place on Job Corps centers.
  Worst of all, according to Job Corps' own figures, the program 
admitted 4,520 students with a criminal record, and 9,678 students with 
a history of psychological or emotional problems.
  Mr. President, this flies in the face of the statute, which requires 
that Job Corps enrollees be screened in order to prevent admission of 
students who will disrupt the program. It seems this requirement is 
routinely ignored.
  In January of this year, the Labor and Human Resources Committee held 
two days of oversight hearings to examine performance, accountability 
and the incidence of violence at Job Corps sites.
  Only days before the hearings, a 19-year-old girl was murdered by 
three other Job Corps students just outside the fence of the Knoxville 
Job Corps center. The police described the murder as ``ritualistic.''
  Testimony at the hearing confirmed the pervasiveness of violence and 
lack of discipline throughout the program. The most compelling 
witnesses were the students themselves. Rhonda Wheeler lasted 10 days 
at the McKinney Job Corps Center in Texas.

       As for the violence on center, I saw twelve fights in the 
     ten days I was there . . . I went to clerical class because 
     that was one of my choices. Five minutes after I got there, 
     two students started punching each other. Both were bleeding 
     and one student picked up a typewriter and threw it at the 
     other . . . Illegal drugs were rampant at McKinney . . . It 
     was another one of those things that was part of the 
     atmosphere of the place.

  Fred Freeman, Jr., a former student at the Woodstock Job Corps center 
in Maryland, made this statement:

       The second night I got my ``blanket party.'' This was 
     standard treatment for new guys. A blanket party for those 
     not familiar with the term is when you are sleeping in your 
     bunk, somebody suddenly throws a blanket over you, and eight 
     to ten guys take turns punching and kicking you. I told the 
     residential advisor after it happened. He said he would 
     report it, but nothing ever happened.

  Two weeks later, Freeman said:

       Someone turned out the lights in the room and I was kicked 
     and punched by him and his buddies. About 20 guys jumped me, 
     and I got kicked from head to toe. After they left, my 
     roommate took me down to the duty officer and they took me to 
     Baltimore County Hospital. I had two cracked ribs and my 
     right temple was swollen up like a balloon . . . No one got 
     disciplined for the incident.

  Shortly thereafter, the Knoxville Job Corps center was ordered closed 
by the Department of Labor. The McKinney Job Corps center was also 
closed, thanks in no small part to the compelling testimony of the 
young witnesses before the Committee.
  Following the hearings, the Department of Labor agreed to take action 
to strictly enforce a One-strike-and-your-out policy on violence and 
drug use. Job Corps also identified, in conjunction with the inspector 
general, more than 25 Job Corps centers considered to be problem 
centers due to violence and consistent low performance.
  While the new policy has helped, I am sorry to say the violence 
continues. About 6 weeks ago, a 20-year-old Job Corps student in 
Oklahoma was murdered by two of his classmates.
  Last June, the General Accounting Office released the results of a 
study I requested they conduct of Job Corps. These results only 
reinforced the inspector general's earlier conclusions. Mr. President, 
I think the title of the report speaks for itself: ``High Costs and 
Mixed Results Raise Questions About Program's Effectiveness.''
  The GAO reviewed outcomes for nearly 2,500 students terminees from 
six Job Corps centers. This is some of what they found:
  Nearly 70 percent of the students dropped out before completing 
vocational training. Of the 30-percent who graduated with a job skill, 
nearly two-thirds found no work or found a low-paying, no skill job.
  The percentage of students obtaining jobs that matched their training 
was only 13 percent. This corroborates the IG's earlier findings. GAO 
also found that half of the graduates who do get jobs only lasted two 
months or less at first job.
  Mr. President, I know that Job Corps is circulating information to 
show that their performance has recently improved. My colleagues should 
be aware that none of the recent figures have been independently 
audited, and if their past records are any indication, Job Corps 
numbers are unreliable at best, intentionally misleading at worst.
  The GAO also found that national training contractors who get paid 
substantial sums for finding students jobs, accounted for only 3 
percent of all job placements. They also questioned the current Job 
Corps policy of awarding nine major national training contracts--at a 
cost of $41 million annually--without competitive bidding.
  The report also noted that 84 percent of Job Corps vocational 
training is in construction, a field in which the number of job 
openings have steadily declined.
  Mr. President, why are we spending tens of million of dollars for 
training for jobs that don't exist? It is little wonder Job Corps' 
placement rate is so low. We do a great disservice to our youth if we 
give them the expectation of a job where none really exists.
  The inspector general continues to question the improper use of 
millions of dollars spent by Job Corps contractors, including some of 
those awarded contracts on a sole source basis.
  Some of the costs these contractors claimed were identified by the IG 
to include: liquor and dry cleaning bills for more than $100,000; 
travel to China and South America by the president of one group; The 
son of the contractor's college tuition; $500,000 for an office in 
Tokyo; $300 a night rooms in resort hotels; and excessive salary 
increases and bonuses for company executives.
  More recently, the inspector general found that Job Corps was forced 
to write off nearly $1.76 million owed by terminated students during 
program years 1992 to 1994. The write-offs were partly the result of 
job placement bonus payments to students which later proved to be 
nonexistent.
  Mr. President, I could go on and on with more facts and figures. But 
I think the case for reform is clear. Even more compelling than the 
facts and figures are the complaints I have received from students and 
staff across the program, as recently as this past weekend.
  Let me conclude with an excerpt of a letter I received from a Job 
Corps recruiter, dated August 1 of this year. He writes:

       I could not morally, ethnically or consciously send my 
     friend's children and community members of Northeastern 
     Wisconsin to these (Job Corps) centers and expect them not to 
     be harmed physically and emotionally. . . .
        . . . All in all, the program is very dysfunctional and 
     mismanaged at all levels of operation. It needs to be 
     reorganized. The best way of doing this is to block grant it 
     to the states. Let the states have responsibility for 
     assisting young adults into the program--the states have a 
     stronger commitment in helping become productive and well-

[[Page S 14971]]
     rounded individuals. This is not happening under such a mismanaged 
     oversized federal bureaucracy . . .

  Mr. President, the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania will 
only perpetuate a national program that has clearly gone awry. I urge 
my colleagues to support true reform of the Job Corps Program, and 
reject the Specter amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I must reluctantly oppose the Specter 
amendment. This is clearly a difficult vote for many of us, 
particularly for those of us who strongly support Job Corps, because I 
know there will be many who argue that a vote against the Specter 
amendment represents a vote against the Job Corps Program. I want to 
make it very clear that my vote should not in any way be interpreted as 
a lack of support for the Job Corps Program. Quite the contrary is 
true. I have been a strong supporter of local Job Corps programs, and I 
believe my vote only reinforces that support.
  Job Corps is our Nation's oldest, largest, and most comprehensive 
residential training and education program for unemployed and under-
educated youth. It is also one of the best-loved Federal programs we 
have in place, and it has had strong bipartisan support over the past 
three decades. I have heard all the accolades showered on Job Corps 
here on the floor. I join my fellow Senators in their praises and I 
share in their endorsement of the program.
  However, as Senator Kassebaum has pointed out, over the past decade, 
Job Corps has fallen short of its promise. At any one time, Job Corps 
serves around 44,000 young men and women at a cost of around $23,000 
per individual. That is a hefty investment. For the most part, it has 
been a worthwhile investment. But as hearings have shown, and as the 
Department of Labor and the inspector general have reported, there is 
increasing evidence that the program is not meeting the needs of 
students or remaining fully accountable to the taxpayer.
  Clearly, reform is in order. Both sides of the aisle acknowledge 
this, the administration acknowledges this, and even Job Corps, I 
think, would acknowledge this. And I think Senator Kassebaum  and 
Senator Specter largely agree on how we go about improving the program. 
For example, both require a zero tolerance policy on drugs, alcohol and 
violence. Both require an external audit to determine which centers are 
not operating efficiently and closes those that perform poorly. Both 
require increased community participation and integration into the 
State's overall workforce development system.
  I also want to make it clear that the underlying bill language does 
not eliminate Job Corps. Nor does it eliminate or reduce the funding 
for the program. Both the Specter amendment and the underlying bill 
acknowledge the role of the Job Corps Program, and there is certainly 
no intention of abolishing the program.
  However, there is one major disagreement between the underlying bill 
and the Specter amendment. While the Specter amendment maintains the 
Federal oversight of the program, the Kassebaum bill places management 
for the program where it belongs: with the local communities.
  In New Mexico, we have two outstanding Job Corps Centers, one in 
Albuquerque and one in Roswell. I have visited these centers, and I 
have seen first hand the kind of work they do. They each have a no-
nonsense approach to placement and training, and they get results. They 
each have a proven record of success, and I anticipate they will 
continue with this track record under a statewide workforce development 
system.
  I know local Job Corps have expressed concern that if we turn 
management over to the States, their administrative costs will go 
through the ceiling. The Department of Labor, for example, has 
estimated that the number of full-time staff will increase by 6.1 full-
time administrative staff per center, and that annual administrative 
expenses will increase by $650,301 per center.
  Frankly, Mr. President, I don't think the Department of Labor is 
giving these centers enough credit. New Mexico's Job Corps Centers can 
do a better job than that. New Mexico's Job Corps Centers already 
actively seek strong community involvement. With increased local 
activity and control, our local centers can manage themselves more 
efficiently and can make an already successful program even better. But 
the Department of Labor would have us believing otherwise.
  If I sound as if I have high expectations of New Mexico's Job Corps 
Center, it is because I do. Are my expectations unrealistic? I don't 
think so. If Job Corps is truly made an integral part of the statewide 
system--and if our Governors seek the input of Job Corps Administrators 
when developing their State plans, as I believe they will--I think the 
returns will be enormous.
  I have full confidence that New Mexico's centers will continue in 
their remarkable records of success. When they have shown such promise, 
such a commitment to these young men and women, and have shown that 
their programs do make a difference, I think it would be a shame not to 
let them take control of their own programs. Why must we continue to 
insist that Federal management of the program is necessary to maintain 
the integrity of the program? Again, let's give our local centers a 
little credit.
  I do not believe this program marks the end of Job Corps. If 
anything, I believe it marks a new beginning for a program with a great 
deal of potential. My vote today reflects my commitment to ensuring 
that Job Corp lives up to that potential by sending the decision-making 
home and into the hands of those who have shown that they can produce 
results: the local communities.
  Mr. President, I want to thank New Mexico's Job Corps Centers for all 
their input during this debate, especially the input of Sue Stevens, 
program director of admissions and placement. I want them to know that 
my vote reflects my full confidence in their abilities to continue Job 
Corps' tradition of excellence in New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on my side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas has 3 minutes and 30 
seconds; the Senator from Pennsylvania has 2 minutes and 30 seconds.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I yield myself 10 minutes on the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I would like to answer some of the 
questions that have come up during the course of this debate, but first 
I would like to thank the Senator from Ohio for an excellent statement 
on exactly why the language that is in the bill answers the concerns 
that we have for the population being served by Job Corps centers. This 
is one of the reasons I must oppose the amendment offered by Senator 
Specter and Senator Simon.
  What is of concern to us is the at-risk youth population. The Job 
Corps is not on the chopping block. The same amount of funding will go 
for Job Corps centers. The Denison center in Iowa is an excellent Job 
Corps center, and there is not any reason to believe that operation 
will necessarily change, except it will be under the responsibility of 
the State instead of the Federal Government. This means the State can 
contract with a private contractor to continue running the center or 
any center that is being run by a private contractor. That does not 
change for those centers.
  As to the question about whether a Governor will be responsive, any 
Governor worth his salt is going to care about the population of his or 
her State. Certainly, the most vulnerable population is the one that we 
are trying to reach with improving and building on what was started 
with the Job Corps Program. The Job Corps was an excellent idea and is 
an excellent purpose still.
  But, Mr. President, I hear over and over again that this is a very 
difficult group of young people to train and we should not expect a 
high success rate. I could not disagree with this view more. I think we 
do a disservice to the very young people that we are wanting to reach, 
and we are sending them a message that somehow they are at risk and 
this is the best they can do. When we fail to challenge at-risk youth 
we peg them by saying that the best they can do are menial jobs. Many 
times that is where they ultimately end up after 

[[Page S 14972]]
spending time in the Job Corps Program, and we will never help them to 
move toward a better future.
  I will be glad to yield in just a moment.
  Mr. HARKIN. I just have one question.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I feel very strongly that in our 
desire to try and improve upon the record of the Job Corps centers. We 
are really wanting to say that we need to be able to look at a 
different delivery service that will help us meet a growing population, 
at-risk youth, and which I think can be held to greater success by 
stronger accountability.
  Frankly, I think it is rather patronizing to suggest that these 
children cannot be motivated and accept the kind of discipline that 
they need to have to be higher achievers. We must do better, and we can 
do better.
  Father Cunningham of Detroit, MI, who runs a program called Focus 
Hope, and has done a superb job with that program, takes inner-city 
youth from Detroit and turns them into machinists and engineers. He has 
a remediation program which increases the math and reading levels of 
at-risk youth at the third and fourth grade levels in 7 weeks. It can 
be done. I have seen other programs that do the same thing. He has a 6-
month machinist training program that places graduates in jobs, often 
on an auto assembly line in Detroit earning $12 to $15 an hour to 
start. He has created a university-level school of engineering to train 
these same at-risk youth to be engineers at Chrysler and Ford and 
General Motors.
  How has he done that? He does that by challenging them to be the best 
that they can be, by really making sure that they themselves are going 
to be self-disciplined enough to care about the program and strong work 
requirements that they have to meet.
  That is what the Job Corps is supposed to be all about. I think we 
have seen a population that has changed since the beginning of the Job 
Corps Program, and we need to recognize that change and provide some of 
the requirements that will allow it to be what it should be.
  I feel very strongly that we must recognize that we are falling short 
of the promise that the Job Corps Program has made. At a cost of almost 
$23,000 per student each year taxpayers are not getting their money's 
worth. More importantly, the at-risk youth for whom the program was 
designed are all too often being left empty handed as well.
  The placement rate was mentioned by the Senator from Iowa. Different 
figures will meet different facts. Maybe it is 73 percent; maybe it is 
a much lower rate. But the important thing is that the placement rate 
in the Job Corps Program right now is being based on finding a job for 
20 hours. If a person finds a job for 20 hours, that then is the 
placement rate on which that percentage is based. I do not think that 
is really the kind of figure that we need to strive for and I think we 
do a real disservice to the youth who are in the program.
  In short, I feel strongly the Job Corps must change. Rather than 
leaving assistance for these vulnerable young men and women in the 
hands of the Federal Government, as the amendment before us offered by 
Senator Specter and Senator Simon would do, S. 143 would return the 
program to where I believe it best belongs--the community.
  I suggest, again, what S. 143 does not do, because there have been 
many myths that have gone around about what would be accomplished under 
the Workforce Development Act. It does not eliminate the Job Corps, and 
it is not just another job training program. It does not eliminate 
residential capability. That is entirely a decision that would be made 
by the Governor, and my guess is that where there is a residential 
program that is going well it will be maintained.
  It does not reduce funding for the Job Corps, and Senator Specter, 
the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee for these funds, has 
always maintained a strong support funding level for Job Corps. It is 
in a section of a bill for at-risk youth. And if that amount of money 
is not used on the Job Corps center, as designed for use by the State, 
it stays with the at-risk youth program. It cannot be used somewhere 
else. As the Senator from Ohio says, it puts a star behind the at-risk 
youth, which is where we want to focus. It does not prohibit the use of 
Job Corps centers by private contractors. It will not prevent well-run 
centers from operating. It will not prevent construction of newly 
proposed centers. It does not prevent a State from recruiting 
nonresident students. It links Job Corps centers to the community and 
statewide training systems established under the bill. It gives States, 
not the Federal Government, the primary responsibility for the 
operation of the Job Corps centers. It eliminates wasteful national 
contracting abuses documented extensively by the GAO and the inspector 
general. It closes the 25 consistently poor-performing centers as 
determined by an independent audit. It establishes strong antiviolence 
and antidrug policies at the Job Corps centers and reforms the entire 
program by returning Job Corps to local control, which I believe can be 
and is a proven recipe for success.

  I just suggest, Mr. President, that we sometimes have to be willing 
to be innovative and take some risks. This is not to, in any way, 
diminish the concept or the idea of the Job Corps program. It was a 
great concept when it was initiated. I believe it continues to have 
merit. I suggest that we are in a different time, with a different at-
risk population of youth today that need to be addressed in a different 
way. It is not the same young men and women today that need assistance 
that were once there when the program started. We have to be willing to 
change it here and provide some different guidance to make it a more 
constructive, successful program.
  Mr. President, I reserve any time that I may have remaining.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains on my side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 2 minutes 30 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield 1 minute 15 seconds to my cosponsor.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, someone said this does not kill the Job 
Corps. It sure severely wounds it. I have not had a letter from a 
single Governor saying we want to do this. Yet, the Job Corps in 
Denison, IA, and Golconda, IL, across State lines, takes care of 
people. That will not happen anymore.
  Look at the language of the bill:

       The State shall use a portion of the funds made available 
     through the allotment to maintain the center . . .

  A portion. That means 5 percent, 50 percent. Mostly, these are 
residential right now. You can be sure if the State can save that money 
and use it for some other purpose, they are going to knock out those 
residential centers. Make no mistake about it, if you vote against the 
Specter-Simon amendment, you are voting to severely wound the Job 
Corps.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I know the proponents of the amendment 
wanted to speak last, so I will yield myself 2 minutes on the bill.
  Mr. President, the reason for the job Corps is probably more urgent 
today than at any other time. We set national priorities. We said the 
Head Start and other national programs are a national priority. We take 
the title I program for young people to try and bring them up, to try 
to make sure they are going to be competitive in our public education 
system. I think if we look around this country, these are the 
individuals that, without at least a helping hand, are going to fall 
into the class of the criminal element in our society.
  This is the last best chance. The only problem I have with the 
Senator from Kansas is when she says we have problems and therefore we 
ought to take this rather dramatic step which, as I think the Senator 
from Illinois points out, can really undermine or end the program.
  We say, let us do the evaluation and strengthen the program, let us 
build on this program, let us find out what needs to be done and deal 
with its particular problems. That is what this issue is. Are we going 
to give a focus and attention to the young people of this country that 
need focus and attention the most? I believe that is what is behind 
this amendment. I hope that it will be accepted.
  I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  (Mr. GORTON assumed the Chair.)
  
[[Page S 14973]]

  Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts.
  Mr. President, I agree with my distinguished colleague from Kansas 
when she says that we have a different group of youth. But I say that 
the differences in our society today from when the Job Corps was 
established, simply underscores the need for intensive job training and 
intensive care and intensive effort be made to see that the young 
people in America are trained to hold jobs and do not require welfare 
or enter the crime cycle.
  My colleague and cosponsor from Illinois puts his finger on a key 
point, and that is that under a changed position of the bill there 
would be only an obligation to use a portion of the funds. Although we 
have $1.1 billion allocated, that really is not too much.
  Mr. President, the four Job Corps centers which are available in my 
home State of Pennsylvania have done really an outstanding job. I had 
occasion to visit the Job Corps training center in Denison, IA--an 
outstanding job. My able staffer, Craig Higgins, has visited Job Corps 
centers across the country and finds an outstanding job. It is true 
that there are some that need to be closed. Our bill, in a more 
modulated way, provides for closure of 10 Job Corps centers, plus more 
closures if it is determined, after an audit, that more ought to be 
closed.
  I believe that in an era where we are looking to block grants, we 
ought to proceed with a bit of caution, and that a program like Job 
Corps, with remedial reform measures, as suggested by GAO and Senator 
Kassebaum, will enable Job Corps to complete this very important 
function.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at this point a letter to 
me from the National Job Corps Coalition, setting forth an impressive 
list of sponsors be printed in the Record; that a letter from the 
Pennsylvania Job Corps Leadership Coalition, with a recitation of a 
considerable number of student success stories, as compiled by the 
Pennsylvania Job Corps Leadership Coalition, be printed in the Record; 
that an open letter to Congress from the Secretaries of Labor and 
Assistant Secretaries endorsing the Job Corps center be printed in the 
Record; that a letter from Mayor Tom Murphy of the city of Pittsburgh 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                     National Job Corps Coalition,


                                        National Headquarters,

                                  Washington, DC, October 6, 1995.
     Hon. Arlen Specter,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Specter: On behalf of the more than 70 
     undersigned organizations representing business, labor, non-
     profit, advocacy and volunteerism, we are writing to express 
     our collective and strong support for the Job Corps amendment 
     that you and Senator Simon will offer during consideration of 
     S. 143, the Workforce Development Act.
       This amendment reflects 3 decades of solid bipartisan 
     support for Job Corps and its tradition of success. Over the 
     past 30 years, Job Corps has empowered more than 1.6 million 
     of America's dis-advantaged youth to become responsible, tax-
     paying citizens.
       We support the Specter-Simon Job Corps amendment because it 
     preserves Job Corps as America's time tested national program 
     for at-risk youth. It is the only program offering a unique 
     combination of residential education, support services, job 
     training and placement services. The amendment incorporates 
     reforms suggested by the Inspector General, Department of 
     Labor, Congressional testimony and General Accounting Office 
     data. It should be noted that none of these reports and 
     studies have recommended a state block grant approach as a 
     means to improve or strengthen Job Corps' performance or 
     accountability.
       We are encouraged that the amendment preserves universal 
     access to all eligible at-risk youth in need of Job Corps 
     comprehensive services--regardless of where they live. 
     Additionally, the amendment will continue to provide these 
     youth access to strong national and regional labor markets 
     for job placement. Overall, the Specter-Simon amendment 
     codifies the strongest reforms to the program in Job Corps 
     history. We support these reform efforts.
       Senator Specter, we appreciate that you recognize that S. 
     143, as currently drafted, is counter to all other 
     evaluations, recommendations and reforms offered in the 
     spirit of helping young people through Job Corps. Your 
     amendment will maintain Job Corps so that another 1.6 million 
     youth will be able to participate in our nation's most 
     effective residential education and training program.
           Respectfully,
                                            LaVera Leonard, Ed.D.,
                              Chair, National Job Corps Coalition.


    organizations committed to support the specter-simon job corps 
                               amendment

       AFL-CIO Appalachian Council; AFL-CIO International 
     Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades; AFL-CIO 
     International Union of Operating Engineers; AFL-CIO National 
     Maritime Union of America; AFL-CIO United Auto Workers; Alpha 
     Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc.; American Youth Policy Forum; 
     Association of Jewish Family & Children's Agencies; Bread for 
     the World; Career Systems Development Corporation; Cavillo 
     and Associates; Center for Law & Social Policy; Cherokee 
     Nation of Oklahoma; Child Welfare League of America, Inc.; 
     Children's Defense Fund; Chugash Development Corporation; 
     Coalition on Human Needs; Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; 
     Council of Jewish Federations; Coyne American Institute; Dau, 
     Walker & Associates; Dynamic Education Systems, Inc.; and 
     DMJM/HTB.
       Education Management Corporation; Empire State Organization 
     of Youth Employment Services; Fresh Air Fund; FEGS--New York 
     City; General Electric Government Services; Grand Rapids 
     Public Schools; Home Builders Institute, the educational arm 
     of the National Association of Home Builders; International 
     Masonry Institute; ITT Job Training Services, Inc.; Jobs for 
     Youth--Boston; Jobs for Youth--New York; Joint Action in 
     Community Service; League of United Latin American Citizens; 
     Management and Training Corporation; The MAXIMA Corporation; 
     MINACT, Inc.; National Assocation of Child Care Resource and 
     Referral Agencies.
       National Child Labor Committee; National Association of 
     Social Workers; National Congress of American Indians; 
     National Youth Employment Coalition; National Urban League; 
     Operative Plasterers and Cement Masons International; 
     Opportunities Industrialization Centers for America; Pacific 
     Education Foundation; Puerto Rico Volunteer Youth Corps; Res-
     Care, Inc.; Teledyne Economic Development Company; Texas 
     Educational Foundation; The EC Corporation; Training and 
     Development Corporation; Training and Management Resources; 
     Transportation Communications International Union; Tribal 
     Council of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the 
     Flathead Indian Reservation; and Tuskegee University.
       United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America; 
     U.S. Conference of Mayors; U.S. Department of Agriculture--
     Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior--Bureau of 
     Reclamation; U.S. Department of the Interior--Fish and 
     Wildlife; U.S. Department of the Interior--National Park 
     Service; U.S. Department of Labor; University of Nevada--
     Reno; Utah Youth Employment Coalition; Vinnell Corporation; 
     Wackenhut Educational Services, Inc.; Women Construction 
     Owners and Exces.; Women in Community Service; American G.I. 
     Forum Women; Church Women United; National Council of 
     Catholic Women; National Council of Jewish Women; National 
     Council of Negro Women; YWCA of U.S.A.; YWCA of Los Angeles; 
     and Youth Build USA.
                                                                    ____

                                            Pennsylvania Job Corps


                                         Leadership Coalition,

                                Edwardsville, PA, October 5, 1995.
     Sen. Arlen Specter,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Specter: I write on behalf of the Pennsylvania 
     Job Corps Leadership Coalition to applaud your efforts to 
     save Job Corps. The Amendment you and Senator Simon are 
     cosponsoring is testimony to your support of this one-of-a-
     kind program. It is also a credit to your leadership and 
     vision, as you have forged a bipartisan alliance that 
     institutes reforms but retains Job Corps' national mission.
       The PJCLC continues to be adamantly opposed to the Job 
     Corps provisions of the Workforce Development Act (S. 143) as 
     its passage would be detrimental to the Commonwealth of 
     Pennsylvania and its four Job Corps campuses. S. 143 mandates 
     the closure of 25 centers, but exempts those states with one 
     or no centers. The burden of center closures would fall 
     disproportionately on states with more than one center, such 
     as ours. State management would force an untested 
     Pennsylvania administrative system to operate the most 
     complex and challenging of programs for at-risk youth.
       The failure of your amendment would constitute a national 
     tragedy as thousands of young people would be deprived of the 
     opportunity that is Job Corps. Its passage will mean the 
     chance of the American Dream for millions more. Thousands of 
     Pennsylvanians stand tall in their support of the Specter/
     Simon Amendment to S. 143. Thank you for your unwavering 
     commitment to and steadfast support of Pennsylvania and 
     America's Job Corps.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Eric S. Lerner,
     Chair.
                                                                    ____


                  Pennsylvania Student Success Stories

       Anthony R. Bowling, 25, graduate of the Keystone Job Corps 
     Center.--Anthony is the first black police officer hired in 
     Hazleton, PA. After graduating from Job Corps, he earned an 
     associate's degree in criminal justice from Luzerne Community 
     College, where he was named to the Dean's list.
       Mark Berry, 25, graduate of the Philadelphia Job Corps 
     Center.--Mark completed his training in business-clerical and 
     is now employed as a computer analyst for PNC Bank 

[[Page S 14974]]
     in Philadelphia. He earns $25,000 a year. He attends college in the 
     evenings, and he's majoring in business management. He wants 
     to eventually operate his own computer programming business.
       Etta Jones, 20, graduate of the Keystone Job Corps Center 
     in Drums.--During her year-and-a-half stay in Job Corps, Etta 
     earned her GED and enrolled in Luzerne County Community 
     College through the Job Corps center's partnership with the 
     college. She earned an associate's degree in human services. 
     Now she works with mentally challenged individuals at the 
     Allegheny Valley Schools. Her goal is to become a supervisor 
     in the near future.
       Delroy Bolton, 18, graduate of the Pittsburgh Job Corps 
     Center.--Delroy trained in carpentry for his year-and-a-half 
     in Job Corps. He served as president of student government. 
     Now, he is employed as a carpentry apprentice for A&B 
     Contractors in Pittsburgh.
       Robert Hunt, 18, graduate of the Pittsburgh Job Corps 
     Center.--Robert, a very recent Job Corps graduate, described 
     himself before Job Corps as ``a menace to his neighborhood.'' 
     After nine months in the program, he says: ``I am a better 
     person. I will continue to be a positive person.'' He earned 
     his GED through Job Corps and was vice president of the 
     student government. He is now employed as a maintenance 
     technician with ICF Corporation in Philadelphia.
       Shao Xu, 28, graduate of the Keystone Job Corps Center in 
     Drums.--Shao earned an associate degree in architectural 
     engineering. He is currently a student at Temple University 
     in Philadelphia completing a degree in architecture.
       Crystal Mouzon, 22, graduate of the Philadelphia Job Corps 
     Center.--Crystal is now employed as a secretary earning 
     $18,000 a year. ``I'm a positive role model for the first 
     time in my life,'' she said.
       Grant Johnson, 20, graduate of the Red Rock Job Corps 
     Center.--Grant trained in landscaping and is currently 
     employed as a groundskeeper for Ninety Four, Inc. in Wilkes-
     Barre, PA.
       Abby Eisenbach, 17, graduate of the Red Rock Job Corps 
     Center.--Abby trained in building and apartment maintenance 
     and is currently employed as a carpenter for Eric Anjkar, a 
     custom wall builder. Abby's residential advisor described her 
     as a ``young woman with extremely low self-esteem from a 
     troubled family who needed the structure Job Corps 
     provided.'' While in Job Corps, Abby earned her GED. She was 
     a dorm leader, a Big Sister, and a member of the Student 
     Government.
                                                                    ____


     An Open Letter to Congress: Keep Job Corps a National Program

       Job Corps is our country's most successful job training and 
     education program for at-risk youths because it is a national 
     program. The Workforce Development Act (S. 143), puts Job 
     Corps' future in jeopardy. If passed, it will close 25 
     centers and turn operations of our nation's most challenging 
     residential education and job training program over to the 
     States. In 30 years, no state has successfully operated such 
     a program. The legislation ignores Job Corps' solid track 
     record of success and invites a risky and tenuous future.
       This bill is in sharp contrast to all other job training 
     consolidation recommendations including the House of 
     Representatives CAREERS Act of 1995, which has strong 
     bipartisan support.
       Four million young people in the U.S. are in need of the 
     basic education, job skills and job placement assistance only 
     offered by Job Corps. Most youth who enroll in Job Corps have 
     inadequate education. Most do not have the skills or 
     attitudes needed to find and keep good jobs. All are from 
     poor families.
       Job Corps is a solution for them. Over the years, Job Corps 
     has helped 1.6 million young men and women become self-
     sufficient citizens. Job Corps is the nation's oldest, 
     largest, most comprehensive and cost-effective residential 
     education and training program for disadvantaged youth 
     between the ages of 16 and 24. Seven out of 10 graduates get 
     jobs or enter further education. Job Corps works. Job Corps 
     should remain a national program because: Job Corps is cost-
     effective.
       Job Corps is a public-private partnership that ensures 
     consistently good residential education and training services 
     for young people. Residential services are among the most 
     complex services offered to youth. Few states have the 
     expertise or desire to take on this challenge.
       Job Corps returns $1.46 for every dollar invested in it 
     through increased taxes paid by graduates and decreased costs 
     of crime, incarceration and welfare.
       Job Corps uses economies of scale to offer comprehensive 
     services, including basic education, job training, 
     counseling, social skills training, medical care, and 
     leadership training. All this costs just $65 a day per 
     student.
       Job Corps is accountable. No other job training program is 
     so rigorously monitored. Job Corps is evaluated on national, 
     regional, and local levels, by the private and public 
     sectors, and by the Inspector General and Government 
     Accounting Office.
       Job Corps is also fiscally accountable to America's 
     taxpayers. Those who complete the Job Corps program boost 
     their earnings by 15 percent. While in Job Corps, young 
     people jump an average of two grade levels. They are most 
     likely to complete high school and attend college.
       Job Corps is accessible. Job Corps has always been 
     available to all eligible youth.
       If the Workforce Development Act of 1995 passes, local 
     youth will not have equal access to Job Corps. All young 
     people in need of Job Corps' comprehensive services should 
     have the opportunity to succeed--like millions before them--
     regardless of state boundaries. Job Corps graduates should 
     also be able to continue crossing state lines to take 
     advantage of strong job markets.
       Job Corps is a part of its community. Job Corps centers 
     work for youth and for their communities. Job Corps students 
     across the U.S. have completed more than $42 million in 
     construction and service projects for their communities, 
     including flood and disaster relief.
       The American public, Congress and Administration should be 
     proud of Job Corps. We implore the Members of Congress from 
     both sides of the aisle to continue your support for Job 
     Corps as a distinct national program.

     Peter J. Brennan,
       Secretary of Labor, Nixon Administration.
     W.J. Usery, Jr.,
       Secretary of Labor, Ford Administration.
     Ray Marshall,
       Secretary of Labor, Carter Administration.
     Frank C. Casillas,
       Assistant Secretary of Labor, Reagan Administration.
     Malcolm R. Lovell, Jr.,
       Assistant Secretary for Manpower, Nixon Administration, 
     Under Secretary of Labor, Reagan Administration.
     Dick Schubert,
       Deputy Secretary of Labor, Nixon/Ford Administration.
     Roger Semorad,
       Assistant Secretary of Labor, Reagan Administration.
                                                                    ____



                                           City of Pittsburgh,

                                Pittsburgh, PA, September 1, 1995.
     Hon. Arlen Specter,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Specter: I understand that the Senate will be 
     taking up Senator Dole's welfare reform package (H.R. 4) in 
     the next few weeks. I am writing to express my concerns about 
     the decision to incorporate Senator Kassebaum's workforce 
     development consolidation legislation into this package.
       First, as you know, I support efforts to consolidate our 
     nation's training and employment programs. Members of the 
     Pittsburgh Private Industry Council, appointed by me, assure 
     me that clients, service providers and employers will all 
     benefit from a more coherent workforce development system.
       I do not believe, however, that welfare reform provides an 
     adequate context in which to address workforce development 
     consolidation. Although many welfare recipients receive 
     services, employment and training programs benefit a much 
     broader clientele. In order to ensure their diverse needs are 
     considered, workforce development legislation deserves its 
     own forum.
       Such a forum would provide you and your colleagues with the 
     opportunity to analyze the provisions of the Workforce 
     Development Act in depth. At least two aspects require 
     attention. First, local governance is still an issue. 
     Although the legislation refers to local workforce 
     development boards, there is no guarantee that these 
     employer-driven boards will continue to play a strong role in 
     the planning and implementation of employment and training 
     programs. Having worked closely with the Pittsburgh Private 
     Industry Council, I understand the extent of expertise and 
     experience that members bring.
       Second, the legislation contains a provision that 
     jeopardizes the future of Job Corps. The Pittsburgh Job Corps 
     center is vital to the region. Since 1972, it has provided 
     opportunities for disadvantaged youth to develop the 
     attitudes and skills required for productive employment. 
     Given the high rate of unemployment, particularly among 
     African-Americans, employment and training programs like Job 
     Corps represent a critical component of our economic 
     development strategy.
       The proposed legislation would transfer governance of Job 
     Corps to the states without providing any incentives for 
     continued operation. Furthermore, twenty-five unspecified 
     centers would be closed. In light of the evidence 
     demonstrating Job Corp's success with at-risk populations, 
     these measures are unjustified and should be stricken.
       In summary, I urge you to support efforts to decouple the 
     Workforce Development Act from H.R. 4. If these efforts are 
     not successful, I request your assistance in ensuring that my 
     concerns about local governance and the future of the Job 
     Corps program are addressed.
       Thank you for your attention.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Tom Murphy,
     Mayor.
                                                                    ____

                                  
[[Page S 14975]]

  Mr. SPECTER. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I 
reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-five seconds remain.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. How much time remains on my side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 3 minutes 30 seconds remaining.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I yield briefly to the Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to respond to the Senator 
from Illinois and the Senator from Pennsylvania. They are absolutely 
correct in what they read. But the rest of the story is that all of 
that money, in that area, that title, has to be spent for at-risk 
youth. So it is not a question of the State being able to take part of 
that money and divert it over here for some other purpose. You cannot 
even use it for some other purpose that has to do with job training. It 
has to specifically be targeted at at-risk youth. To me, that is the 
significant part.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I appreciate the observation made by 
the Senator from Ohio. He is exactly correct. In the section of the 
bill that is ``At Risk Youth'' there is an authorization for $2.1 
billion, of that, $1.1 billion is for Job Corps.
  If there are any savings to be found in Job Corps with the 
elimination of extra administration layers that money stays with the 
at-risk program in this section.
  I cannot stress enough that those centers being well run will 
continue to be well run. I appreciate the Senator from Pennsylvania 
saying that the intensive training and intensive care are things that 
we would all want to accomplish with these initiatives.
  I believe strongly that it can be better done by the State than by 
the Federal Government at this point in time. I hope that my colleagues 
would oppose the Specter-Simon amendment.
  I yield the floor and yield my time back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 25 seconds remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand that it is the desire of the 
leader to conclude the debate on this and then move to the conclusion 
of the Ashcroft amendment, of which there was a 20-minute time.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a memorandum 
to me from Craig Higgins and Jim Sourwine be printed in the Record, as 
well as a table on the impact of the Job Corps in Pennsylvania.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               Memorandum

                                                 October 10, 1995.
     To: Senator Specter.
     From: Craig Higgins and Jim Sourwine.
     Re: Staff visits to Job Corps Centers.
       As per your direction, outlined below is a description of 
     staff visits to Job Corps centers.


                      Timberlake Job Corps Center

       January 1990, staff visited the Timberlake Job Corps Center 
     outside of Estacada, Oregon. Estacada is a small town located 
     high in the Cascade mountains about 2 hours from Portland, 
     Oregon. It is a Civilian Conservation Corps center operated 
     by the Forrest Service serving about 250 students annually. 
     The strength of their training programs was in forestry 
     related jobs, however, they did offer vocational training in 
     some construction trades, culinary arts and building 
     maintenance. What was most striking was that the majority of 
     the students were not from Oregon, but from large urban 
     areas, such as Detroit, Chicago and Los Angeles. Most of the 
     kids had been uprooted from their ``street life'' in the city 
     and been transported high in the mountains of the Northwest 
     to study and receive vocational training. There was nothing 
     else to do but to study. The nearest town was 8 miles down 
     the mountain and was not much more than a gas station, a 
     country store, and a post office. Therefore, according to the 
     staff, the kids worked hard to finish their training so they 
     could get back to ``civilization.'' Additionally, the staff 
     reported most of the students who completed their training 
     did not return home to the big cities, but found jobs in the 
     Northwest.
       The Kassebaum bill establishes Job Corps as a state-based 
     program and would eliminate the possibility of students from 
     Chicago or Detroit from receiving training from a center in 
     Oregon, Pennsylvania or Arizona. For some kids, being far 
     from the home environment is just what they need.


                       Woodstock Job Corps Center

       In 1988 or 1989, staff visited the Woodstock Job Corps 
     Center located in Randallstown, Maryland. This was a large 
     center which served approximately 500 students annually. The 
     majority of the students came from the Baltimore/Washington 
     area. The bulk of the training offered was in the 
     construction trades and the culinary arts. This was a clean, 
     well organized, center on property which had once been a 
     monastery. Center staff reported having good ties with local 
     businesses in the construction trades, which made job 
     placement once the training was completed easier. The one 
     problem identified was the difficulty in getting to jobs in 
     suburban communities due to the lack of transportation.
       At the time of the visit, Center staff reported that while 
     there were discipline problems, they were controllable and 
     were not unexpected given the size of the center and the 
     severely disadvantaged population they served. In recent 
     years, however, the Center has had more serious problems with 
     violence.
                                                                    ____


                  IMPACT OF JOBS CORPS IN PENNSYLVANIA                  
        [Data for Program Year 1994 (July 1, 1994-June 30, 1995)]       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             In percent--               
                                       -----------------------          
                                           Total                Average 
                                          overall   Placement    hourly 
                                         placement   rate job     wage  
                                         rate (all   training           
                                        terminees)    match             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keystone JCC..........................        74.8       68.0      $5.61
Philadelphia JCC......................        90.4       61.0       6.28
Pittsburgh JCC........................        74.8       47.9       5.37
Red Rock JCC..........................        80.1       66.5       5.53
                                       ---------------------------------
    Pennsylvania Composite rates......        80.0       60.9       5.70
    National rates....................        73.0       47.0      6.16 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Pennsylvania provided service for approximately 3,000 at-risk     
  youth of which 65% were from Pennsylvania and 35% were from other     
  states. Students average 2 grade level gains in an average of 7.5     
  months.                                                               

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in conclusion I say that Congress has 
oversight; the committee, chaired by the distinguished Senator from 
Kansas, can correct any problems which arise. When they do arise from 
time to time, that action can be taken.
  I very much think we ought to keep this Job Corps with the 
corrections, but keep it a national program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on the amendment has expired.
  Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Pell be added as an 
original cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside 
the pending amendment offered by Senator Specter; that the Senate 
resume consideration of the Ashcroft amendment numbered 2893; that 
there be 20 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form on that 
amendment, to be followed by 4 minutes equally divided for debate on 
the Specter amendment, to be followed by a vote on or in relation to 
the Specter amendment; further, that following that debate there be an 
additional 4 minutes debate on the Ashcroft amendment numbered 2893, to 
be followed by a vote on or in relation to the Ashcroft amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2893

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the Ashcroft amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2893.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. 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 text of the amendment is located in the Record of Tuesday, 
October 10, 1995.)
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for providing this 
time for explanation and debate regarding the amendment I have 
proposed.
  The amendment which I have proposed is an amendment which would allow 
us to target and focus our scarce job training resources on individuals 
who would be most likely to use those resources effectively, most 
likely to benefit from training.
  The amendment requires random drug testing for all job training 
applicants. The number of the individuals tested and the frequency 
would be left to the localities. The amendment would also ask the 
States to test participants in the program based on a standard of 
reasonable suspicion. If an applicant or participant tested positive 
they could reapply after 6 months from the date of disqualification but 
they must show for reapplication that they passed a drug test within 
the last 30 days.
  Mr. President, as the chart behind me indicates, 89 percent of all 
the manufacturers test for drug utilization; 88 

[[Page S 14976]]
percent of all people in the transportation industry. It is true that 
in the financial services sector only 47 percent of employers test for 
drugs. The fact of the matter is, however, we are not in the business 
of developing mutual fund managers. We are talking about applicants and 
participants who will seek jobs in major industries like manufacturing 
and transportation.
  Mr. President, it seems to me that if we have a scarce resource, we 
ought to focus it on individuals who will be able to get jobs at the 
conclusion of the program. Those individuals who are going to be placed 
are the ones who are drug-free.
  Let us not perpetuate the myth that you can travel down the road of 
drug utilization and job development at the same time. You cannot. The 
truth of the matter is if you want a job, you are going to have be 
drug-free. These are the facts, and to suggest otherwise is both 
inaccurate and inappropriate.
  So a vote ``yes'' for this amendment is a vote for the belief that a 
finite resource should be focused on individuals who are employable.
  Are we interested in saving millions of dollars for the taxpayers? 
That is what the American people have asked us to do. Why should we 
spend thousands of dollars to train individuals who are going to hit 
this wall? Do we want to reduce the $140 billion companies lose to 
drug-addicted workers every year?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 6 minutes.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I yield myself another minute and 30 seconds.
  The National Institute on Drug Abuse indicates that $140 billion a 
year is lost in this country from theft, loss of productivity, 
accidents, and absenteeism related to drug use. Let us send a clear 
message that drug use is incompatible with the kind of productive 
employment necessary to our survival.
  I think an intelligent policy is to say that we should have a random 
drug testing policy. Random testing will send a clear signal that drug 
utilization and job training are incompatible. A message that the 
Congress has failed to send in the past, but that we can and should 
send today.
  Mr. President, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri would 
require applicants and participants in job training programs to submit 
to drug testing. I am opposed to the amendment because it represents an 
unwarranted and unprecedented intrusion into the privacy of the 
thousands of ordinary Americans who use job training services.
  In addition, the amendment is a costly and unfunded Federal mandate. 
One of the innovations of this job training bill is the degree of 
flexibility it gives States and localities. The Ashcroft amendment is 
completely out of step with that goal.
  Drug testing has an important role in certain job training settings, 
just as it has in certain workplace settings. But the proposal by the 
Senator from Missouri is overbroad, excessively expensive, and an 
example of the intrusive Federal policy role that this bill is designed 
to combat.
  The vast majority of the people who will use the job training 
services authorized in this bill are upstanding citizens, not 
criminals. They are displaced defense workers. They are blue collar 
workers who have been laid off as a result of a factory closing. They 
are professionals seeking to improve their skills in specialized 
fields.
  The Ashcroft amendment says to these people: If you want this 
assistance to try to improve your skills and obtain employment, you 
have to agree to submit to a Government test for possible drug abuse. I 
do not believe that the privacy of ordinary citizens hoping to improve 
their job skills should be routinely invaded in this intrusive manner.
  The Government uses drug testing today for airline pilots, train 
conductors, and other employees involved in sensitive public safety 
tasks. If programs funded by this bill train people in sensitive jobs, 
there is nothing that would prohibit drug testing.
  But routinely testing of everyone is too extreme. We do not do it in 
other programs, and we should not do it in this one.
  We do not drug-test people seeking Government assistance in financing 
a mortgage; we do not drug-test flood or earthquake victims applying 
for disaster relief; we do not drug-test crime victims seeking 
assistance from the Federal Office of Victim Services; we do not drug-
test farmers seeking crop subsidies.
  We do not drug-test corporate executives seeking overseas marketing 
assistance from the Commerce Department.
  Why are job training recipients singled out for this stigma? No case 
has been made that this population is more susceptible to drug abuse 
than the population at large.
  The amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri requires drug 
testing in two situations. First, every applicant to a job training 
program is subject to testing on a random basis. Second, participants 
in training programs are subject to testing based on reasonable 
suspicion of drug use. Both random basis and reasonable suspicion are 
undefined concepts. They raise the specter that excessive distinctions 
will be made based on stereotypes and prejudices.
  As we have often been told, Washington does not have all the answers. 
We should not replace one set of Federal mandates with another set of 
Federal mandates. This bill is designed to maximize local flexibility, 
but the Ashcroft amendment goes in the opposite direction.
  Indeed, the Ashcroft amendment would actually preempt some State 
laws. A number of State legislatures have addressed the circumstances 
under which drug testing can be utilized, but the Ashcroft amendment 
would actually override the considered judgments of those legislative 
bodies and put in place a one-size-fits-all Federal mandate.
  Drug testing on the scale contemplated by this amendment would be 
enormously expensive. By some estimates, 1 million Americans use the 
job training services included in this bill. The Department of Health 
and Human Services estimates that the average cost of a drug test is 
about $35.
  That means it would cost $35 million each year to administer an 
average of one test to each person. Either this amendment saddles local 
governments with a huge unfunded mandate, or it eats up a large portion 
of the Federal funds made available under this bill.
  It is also important to note that drug testing technology is not 
infallible. Depending upon the type of testing technology that is used, 
as many as 4 percent of all drug tests result in false positives. That 
means that if a million drug tests are administered, some 40,000 
Americans might be inaccurately labeled as drug users.
  Of course there are often opportunities for appeals and confirmation 
tests and retests. But we should think long and hard before we adopt 
this amendment and subject tens of thousands of ordinary, law-abiding 
Americans to the Kafka-esque nightmare of being falsely accused of drug 
use.
  The amendment requires those who test positive for drugs to obtain 
drug treatment. But who will pay for treatment? Right now, only a third 
of the Americans who need substance abuse treatment receive it because 
insurance coverage and public funding are inadequate. At the very 
moment that we debate this proposal, the Appropriations Committees of 
Congress are poised to slash Federal support for drug treatment. The 
House has already passed a bill that cuts Federal spending on drug 
treatment and prevention by 23 percent.
  In light of that fiscal reality, it makes no sense to institute a 
massive new Government drug testing program.
  Perhaps the intent of the Ashcroft amendment is to require local 
governments or job training programs themselves to pay for the 
treatment of those who test positive. That would at least guarantee 
that treatment is available, but it would cause the price tag of this 
amendment to reach an even more prohibitive level.
  Finally, the amendment is objectionable because it may deter people 
who need job training services from seeking them. The threat of an 
intrusive drug test may put off drug users and non-drug users alike. We 
want to encourage people to improve their skills. We want to encourage 
the unemployed to become employed. We should not erect barriers to the 
services authorized in this bill.
  Job training programs do not need the Federal Government to tell them 


[[Page S 14977]]
how to deal with drug abuse. They have the tools they need. Where drug 
testing is appropriate, it will occur. But a sweeping Federal mandate 
is completely unnecessary and excessively expensive, and I urge the 
Senate to reject this amendment.
  Mr. President, this amendment is a complete conflict with the whole 
spirit of the legislation. Rather than the Federal Government and 
Congress setting the rules, leave this up to the States and local 
communities.
  I have concerns about the privacy issue, concerns about the cost 
issue, preempting State laws, the whole issues on quality control for 
random tests and what the circumstances are, what the definitions would 
be for reasonable suspicion. There are all kinds of reasons.
  Mr. President, 6 years ago we had a very similar amendment. It was 
focused on welfare recipients. We say we have scarce resources and we 
need to be careful with our spending. But simply because they are on 
welfare should we require drug testing? The Senate said no and that 
amendment was soundly defeated.
  I do not know what it is about the workers of this country. The 
Senator has in effect said that the displaced Raytheon workers who 
built the Patriot missile ought to be required to take some kind of a 
test.
  In this legislation, under the national activities, if there are 
hurricanes, as we have just had, there will be members of communities 
in south Florida who will be eligible for help and assistance. What 
does the Ashcroft amendment say? You have to go out and take a drug 
test. If you are going to have people take a drug test, what about 
farmers? Are we going to say, because we have had national disasters, 
you are going to have to go out and get a drug test? We do not say that 
to the small business men and women. We do not say that to all the 
students in the country. We do not say that to all the people who are 
going to get generous tax breaks on mineral rights. We do not say that 
cattle growers who are going to get benefits from the Federal 
Government must take a drug test first. Why are we picking out workers 
in this country? Where is the case for it? Where is the justification? 
Where is the right to do that? Yesterday it was the people on welfare. 
Today it is the American workers. The case has not been made. It is a 
mandate to the various States and communities. You are going to be 
preempting the States.
  If there is a justification, for example in terms of safety, if there 
is a justification in terms of security--like airline pilots and those 
who are in public transportation--they have the right to go ahead and 
do that now. There is no prohibition against them doing it now. There 
is no prohibition, if they set up training programs where public safety 
is at risk, that prohibits them from going ahead. We give that 
flexibility to the local community. So why should we superimpose a 
Federal mandate on it? It makes no sense. The case has not been met.
  It may be a feel good amendment, but when we talk about scarce 
resources going to training--we see significant cuts in these programs 
in any event. And for the reasons the Senate soundly defeated a similar 
amendment just a few years ago, that targeted those individuals who are 
poor and needy and need some help and assistance, this amendment should 
be defeated as well. I do not think we ought to put at risk the workers 
of this country, who, generally because of the downsizing or because of 
mergers, are thrown off and become unemployed. It is clear that all 
they are trying to do is get into a training program and get a job, why 
should we threaten their rights of privacy.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I regret the fact that not everyone in 
the Senate was in attendance last night when we debated these issues.
  The Senator raises the question of why deal with job training? It is 
because reality is going to deal with job training applicants and 
participants on drugs. Mr. President, 89 percent of the employers will 
test for them in manufacturing; 88 percent in transportation. Why do we 
not move that test up and help people get started down the right path, 
instead of going through some kind of training and then being hit by 
this wall. We do not have that problem in farming. There is not going 
to be a drug test that keeps a farmer from selling his cattle. That 
issue is totally specious.
  I do not know why we choose to discuss the welfare situation here, 
but we just passed a welfare bill that provides that States may suspend 
benefits to welfare recipients who test positive for drugs. I do not 
know what we did in 1986, but I know what we did in 1995 and that is 
part of the welfare reform measure we just passed.
  The point is we do have scarce resources. Why waste them on 
individuals who are not going to be employable when they are through 
with the work training program? Since the resources are scarce, let us 
focus them on the individuals who are responsible enough, who care 
enough about their families, who care enough about their future to be 
able to benefit from the training program because they are not high on 
drugs. Let us not stick our heads in the sand, while someone else is 
sticking a needle in his arm.
  Let us say if you have to be drug free to work then drug testing 
ought to be a fundamental part of your training. You have to learn to 
be drug free because that is the way the work force is going to 
survive. It is that simple.
  Let us not perpetuate a myth that somehow you can go down the dual 
highway, one of the roads being drug utilization and the other road 
being job training or job seeking. The truth of the matter is, American 
industry is clear. Mr. President, 77 percent of all employers test for 
drugs, 89 percent in manufacturing, 88 percent in transportation.
  We ought to send a signal loudly and clearly to individuals who are 
part of our training program. Part of your training is to adopt a 
lifestyle which will be productive and which will result in 
employability, not to persist in a lifestyle which will send you 
slamming into a wall of unemployment and despair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 more minutes. The fact 
of the matter is, many of the defense-related industries require 
reasonable cause, not just suspicion or random selection, which the 
Senator has talked about here. I do not know why the Senator has a 
feeling that all displaced workers, like the 12,000 workers that were 
laid off when Chemical Bank and the Chase merged the other day in New 
York City, is where the problem is. Why is it that the Senator believes 
that workers are more at risk than farmers are? Than family-farmers 
are? Where is the justification to say the workers who work in the 
States of this country, that work in plants, work in small business--
may even be a homemaker, because homemakers are included in here--where 
is the Senator's justification for it? It just is not there. We have 
asked for the justification. He has not been able to demonstrate it. 
And I fail to understand why we would single out those individuals.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I am pleased the Senator asked the question, because I 
have the answer. The farmer who gets assistance does not have to pass a 
drug test before he sells his cattle. But the employee who seeks 
training will have to pass a test before he can be hired. In the latter 
case, the benefit is denied, the benefit for which the training was 
undertaken. That is the answer to your question.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I listened. I was prepared to yield. I 
fail to understand why the farmer who gets price subsidies, which are 
taxpayers' dollars, are not expected to have a drug test but our 
workers are. I am not out there to say every farmer who gets price 
supports ought to have this kind of test, because the case has not been 
made for any such test.
  If we are going to say about farmers or small business men and women 
the case has not been made, then they should not be tested. Why are you 
going to say the workers ought to be? That is what the Senator is 
saying. You have not made the case that there is a requirement, you 
have not shone that there is a need for it, and you do not set any 
other kinds of standards. 

[[Page S 14978]]
You say, return this activity to the States. What are the States going 
to do? They are going to use the least expensive methods, which in many 
instances are the most faulty systems.
  There are standards which are established and should be established 
when you are talking about public safety and transportation, which are 
going to provide for the safety and well-being, the lives of the 
public. There should be standards and there should be adequate 
inspection and investigation and tests when necessary. We support that. 
There is nothing in the bill that denies anybody the opportunity to do 
it. But to suddenly say to those workers who are going to be affected 
by national activities, because of the hurricane you are going to be 
tested, or the homemakers, you are going to be tested. The Senator has 
not made the case.
  I just wonder why we ought to be doing that, let alone preempting, 
which the Senator would do, any of the State laws that provide 
protections in terms of privacy, or set requirements in terms of 
various standards. You are preempting a number of State laws that are 
in effect, and you are effectively running over those.
  The case has not been made for it. If the States want to be able to 
do it, there is no prohibition under the Kassebaum amendment. If there 
is a need for it, desire for it, if it is necessary, you can do it. I 
do not think the justification has been made that we should do it for 
all of those covered by the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Missouri has 
1 minute 56 seconds, the Senator from Massachusetts, 3 minutes 12 
seconds.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, this is a simple amendment. We have a 
limited number of dollars we devote to job training. We can either 
train people regardless of whether they use drugs, or we can decide to 
train people who are drug-free. If we train people who are drug-free, 
there will more people who will get jobs than if we train both the drug 
free and abusers of illicit drugs. It seems to me, if our ultimate 
objective is to train people to be employed, we should train people who 
care enough about working that they are willing to put aside a 
lifestyle of drug addiction and abuse.
  In the end, the reason this amendment is worthy of our consideration 
is that 77 percent of all firms test for drug use. So, we can continue 
to waltz people along in the sleepy myth that you can be on drugs and 
get a job or we can embrace the truth.
  Why waste the $2,000 or $4,000 in training a person only to have them 
disqualified when they get finished with the training? That is the 
difference between the farmer. That is the difference between the 
welfare recipient. There is reality at the end of the training. It is 
called employment and you cannot get it if you are on drugs.
  I urge the Members of this body to respond, to allocate our training 
funds to individuals who are drug-free. Thank you.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes and 12 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is interesting that in the Senator's 
amendment it provides that if an individual applicant fails the drug 
test, they can seek treatment through a drug treatment program. How 
much does the Senator think will be allocated for drug treatment 
programs?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am not sure how much is available in 
drug treatment programs. There are drug treatment programs.
  Mr. KENNEDY. How much does the Senator allow in his amendment? Does 
he expect the drug treatment programs to be paid for out of this?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. No. There are separate funds available in every 
jurisdiction for drug treatment programs, some of which are Federal 
funds and some of which are State funds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Does the Senator know what happened to those treatment 
programs in the appropriations bills this last year? They have been 
reduced by close to a quarter, Mr. President.
  This amendment just does not make any sense.
  I yield the remainder of my time.


                           Amendment No. 2894

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). There are 4 minutes remaining 
on amendment No. 2894 offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator 
Specter.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes. Senator Kassebaum 
has 2 minutes.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I would be prepared to yield back time.
  Mr. SIMON. I will take 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, there is no question that without the 
Specter amendment, we severely wound Job Corps. It is the only program 
we have working with at-risk young people which is really working, and 
working effectively. When the legislation says they have to use a 
portion of the money that we give to them to maintain Job Corps 
centers, they can use this for parole agents. It is revenue sharing 
with the States. It really is important. If you believe in helping at-
risk young people in our Nation, pass this, the Specter-Simon 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I want to say in closing that I think 
we have had a good debate on the pros and cons of the needs of the Job 
Corps Program and at-risk youth.
  I suggest that this debate is about whether the Federal Government 
should continue in the same way as it has in running the Job Corps 
programs, or whether the States can do a better job. Can the local 
community be more involved and bring about a greater sense of 
accountability and responsibility for helping this very vulnerable 
population, which with the right set of guidelines and expectations can 
achieve more than it has done.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Specter-Simon amendment, and 
to be willing to invest in trying to achieve even greater success with 
the Job Corps Program.
  I yield back any time that I have remaining,
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Specter-Simon 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Pennsylvania. On this question, the yeas and nays 
have been ordered, and 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 to a death in the family.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 485 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--40

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bond
     Brown
     Chafee
     Coats
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Roth
     Simpson
     Smith
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Cohen
     Moynihan
       
  So the motion was agreed to.
  
[[Page S 14979]]

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. SIMON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2893

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, their will now be 4 
minutes for debate on amendment No. 2893, offered by the Senator from 
Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft].
  Who yields time?
  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask for order in the Chamber.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will please come to order.
  There will be 4 minutes of debate before the next vote. The Senator 
from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you, Mr. President. This amendment would provide 
for random drug testing for individuals in job training programs. The 
truth of the matter is that 89 percent of all manufacturers, 88 percent 
of all those in the transportation industry, 77 percent of all 
employers provide for drug testing prior to employment. If we expect 
for people who move through our job training programs to be really 
employable, we need to ask them to participate by getting drug free in 
the process. We need to send a clear signal that being on a track of 
drug use and job training or employability are incompatible and 
inconsistent tracks.
  We have limited job training resources. We do not have enough to go 
around. Let us make sure that we use them well by saying that those 
individuals who are drug-free will be the individuals for whom we 
provide job training. To ask that individuals undergo random drug tests 
in job training is merely to reflect the reality of the marketplace 
where 89 percent of manufacturers will require it.
  Let us not perpetuate a myth that somehow drugs are compatible with 
employment and that productivity and achievement are compatible with 
drugs. Let us say that we provide for random drug testing that will 
focus our job training resources on those who care enough to be drug 
free and will be employable upon the completion of the program.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. President, there are job training programs where this kind of 
testing is appropriate. When we talk about public safety, when we talk 
about the airlines, when we talk about the railroads, that is 
appropriate and that is permitted under this bill.
  Effectively, what this Senator is saying is that every worker in this 
country is somehow under the suspicion of drug usage. The case has not 
been made. The people eligible for these benefits are the people in 
Florida who suffered under Hurricane Opal. They are going to be the 
homemakers, they are going to be the displaced workers, they are going 
to be the 12,000 workers from Chemical Bank and Chase Bank squeezed out 
as a result of mergers.
  The case has not been made. Random, there is no definition of random. 
Reasonable suspicion, there is no definition of what reasonable 
suspicion is. There is no definition of what the cost is, plus 
preempting the States.
  In the Kassebaum bill, if there is a desire and need for that kind of 
testing it can be done locally. Why should we have an additional 
Federal mandate that is going to interfere with the workers of this 
country? We do not require it of farmers who get various benefits. We 
do not require it of small businessmen. We do not require it of defense 
contractors. We do not require it in the timber industry or the mining 
industry or those who use the public lands for grazing, who all get 
benefits. Why should we say to the workers who have been displaced with 
downsizing or mergers that you are going to be subject to this random 
testing? It was tried 6 years ago.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 30 seconds.
  We had a similar amendment to do it for all welfare recipients. That 
was rejected overwhelmingly. For the same reason it was rejected for 
welfare recipients, we ought to reject it for the workers of this 
country.
  I yield back the remainder of time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to amendment 
No. 2893. 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 New York [Mr. Moynihan] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 486 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Reid
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--43

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Chafee
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Ford
     Graham
     Grams
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Specter
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Cohen
     Moynihan
       
  So the amendment (No. 2893) was agreed to.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2895

           (Purpose: To reduce the Federal labor bureaucracy)

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Gramm of Texas, I 
send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum], for Mr. Gramm 
     proposes an amendment No. 2895.

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. 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 201, strike lines 18 through 22 and insert the 
     following:
       (B) Scope.--
       (i) Initial reductions.--Not later than the date of the 
     transfer under subsection (b), the Secretary of Labor and the 
     Secretary of Education shall take the actions described in 
     subparagraph (A) with respect to not less than \1/3\ of the 
     number of positions of personnel that relate to a covered 
     activity.
       (ii) Subsequent reductions.--Not later than 5 years after 
     the date of the transfer under subsection (b), the Secretary 
     of Labor and the Secretary of Education shall take the 
     actions described in subparagraph (A)--
       (I) with respect to not less than 60 percent of the number 
     of positions of personnel that relate to a covered activity, 
     unless the Secretaries submit (prior to the end of such 5-
     year period) a report to Congress demonstrating why such 
     actions have not occurred; or
       (II) with respect to not less than 40 percent of the number 
     of positions of personnel that relate to a covered activity, 
     if the Secretaries make the determination and submit the 
     report referred to in subclause (I).
       (iii) Calculation.--For purposes of calculating, under this 
     subparagraph, the number of positions of personnel that 
     relate to a covered activity, such number shall include the 
     number of positions of personnel who are separated from 
     service under subparagraph (A).

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. This amendment pertains to provisions of S. 143 
dealing with reductions in the Federal work force, as we consolidated 
offices at the Federal level to oversee the new work 

[[Page S 14980]]
force development system. This language was worked out with the Senator 
from Texas, and I believe it is acceptable on both sides.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I urge the support of the amendment, 
which clearly is in focus with what the intention is for this 
legislation--that is, the reduction of personnel and manpower.
  There has been a dramatic reduction in the period of the last 3 
years. That flow line we expect to continue. This establishes some 
additional benchmark to be able to achieve it.
  I think it is a reasonable amendment. I hope it would be accepted.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
No. 2895.
  The amendment (No. 2895) was agreed to.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. 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.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I would like to discuss the important 
issue of encouraging competition between the private and public sectors 
in the delivery of training and employment services at the State and 
local levels.
  As you know, the Workforce Development Act consolidates nearly 100 
separate education and job training programs into a single, universal 
work force development system through block grants to the States.
  I want to commend the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National 
Association of Manufacturers, the National Federation of Independent 
Business, the National Alliance of Business, and other business groups 
for their efforts to help shape legislation to restructure the Nation's 
education and training system. These representatives of the business 
community are advocating a comprehensive work force development system 
that is market-based, customer-driven, and that gets results.
  Would the Senate majority leader, my colleague from Kansas, please 
comment on the role of business in restructuring Federal training 
programs?
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I agree with the distinguished Senator from 
Kansas. America needs a work force that is trained for private sector 
occupations--especially those generated by small businesses and 
entrepreneurs--that will help ensure a competitive U.S. economy. I 
believe the system must be private sector driven to ensure it is 
flexibile and responsive to the evolving dynamics of the labor market, 
international competition, and technological advances over the coming 
years and decades.
  I believe small business should be able to compete with the public 
sector in the delivery of training and employment services and in the 
operation of the one-stop centers. If the consolidation of Federal 
programs is to adequately reflect the realities of today's labor 
market, business--particularly small business--absolutely must play a 
lead role in ensuring workers are equipped with the skills needed by 
America's employers. Incorporating competition and free market 
principles into training services at the local level will also 
encourage public sector programs to operate more effectively. 
Opportunities for private-public sector competition in the 
implementation of local work force development plans is an area 
strongly pursued by U.S. business interests. In particular, I want to 
recognize the work by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National 
Association of Manufacturers in this area and welcome their input in 
education and job training services on behalf of small business.
  Does the distinguished chairman of the Senate Labor and Human 
Resources Committee agree on the unique role of small business?
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, the bill I introduced enables both 
local chambers and small businesses to compete with the public sector 
in the course of restructuring the Federal training system. I believe 
local chambers of commerce--in addition to small businesses--are 
uniquely positioned to operate one-stop centers and to serve as 
training providers. Today, local chambers are leading the way in many 
of the Nation's most innovative and effective work force development 
initiatives. I understand the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has undertaken a 
major initiative to mobilize local chambers of commerce to be in the 
vanguard in this effort to revolutionize training for America's private 
sector.
  Similarly, regional and local affiliates of the National Association 
of Manufacturers serve as a strong intermediary source in bringing 
business, education and government leaders together at the State and 
community level to form meaningful and sustained work force development 
programs.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Kansas for opening 
discussion on the important role that business brings to the table. 
With strong private sector input, efforts to turn primary 
responsibility for education programs to the State and local levels 
will hold much promise.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I appreciate the comments from the Senate majority 
leader on this important issue and I ask unanimous consent to have 
printed in the Record a letter from the chamber of commerce with an 
accompanying statement.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America,
                                  Washington, DC, October 5, 1995.
       Members of the United States Senate: The U.S. Chamber of 
     Commerce, representing 215,000 businesses, 3,000 state and 
     local chambers of commerce, 1,200 trade and professional 
     associations, and 73 American Chambers of Commerce abroad, 
     urges your support for the Workforce Development Act (S. 
     143), which is scheduled for floor consideration on October 
     10.
       The Workforce Development Act, sponsored by Senator Nancy 
     Kassebaum (R-KS), contains many provisions that the Chamber 
     supports. S. 143 would consolidate and decentralize roughly 
     100 federal education and training programs into a simpler, 
     integrated block grant system for states. The bill also would 
     enable small businesses and local chambers of commerce to 
     compete with the public sector in the delivery of education 
     and training services; recognize the important role of 
     business in the design and implementation of the new system; 
     and promote the effective use of technology and the 
     development of labor-market information to orient education 
     and training services.
       In additional to these provisions, the Chamber is 
     encouraged that the Workforce Development Act maintains the 
     important goal of preparing students and workers for skills 
     needed in the modern workplace. S. 143 aims to achieve this 
     goal by adopting many new approaches to workforce 
     development. Examples include promoting the use of vouchers 
     rather than funding streams for institutions and programs; 
     establishing user-friendly, one-stop delivery centers where 
     individuals and employers can share and obtain relevant job 
     information; opening the door to new measures of 
     accountability rather than relying on the old measure of 
     bureaucratic processes; and encouraging the creation of 
     effective business-education partnerships.
       Many, if not most, of these provisions are found in the 
     Chamber's policy statement on restructuring the federal 
     training and employment system. A copy of this statement is 
     attached, for your review.
       For American business, the knowledge and skills of 
     employees are the critical factors for economic success and 
     international competitiveness. The Workforce Development Act 
     embodies language that can help achieve this end by creating 
     a world-class workforce development system that is responsive 
     to today's skill needs. Again, we urge your support for S. 
     143, and your opposition to any weakening amendments. Doing 
     so will dramatically enhance the possibility of enacting 
     meaningful workforce development legislation during the 104th 
     Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                                  R. Bruce Josten,
                                            Senior Vice President,
     Membership Policy Group.
                                                                    ____


 Statement on Restructuring the Federal Training and Employment System

       The U.S. Chamber recognizes that America's training and 
     employment system is inadequate to meet the demands of 
     rapidly evolving technologies and intensifying global 
     competition. The current system is fragmented and 
     duplicative, and often fails to provide workers and employers 
     with the fast and effective training and placement services 
     they need. Equally compelling is the fact that growing 
     numbers of workers are becoming permanently displaced through 
     structural changes in government policy and corporate 
     restructuring, as opposed to cyclical changes in the economy. 
     These weaknesses in the existing work-to-work transition 
     system need to be resolved.
       The U.S. Chamber, therefore, supports restructuring the 
     federal training and employment system to make it more 
     responsive to the needs of dislocated workers and skill 
     requirements of employers. To be effective, it is essential 
     that the new system reflect the following principles:

[[Page S 14981]]

       The business community must be centrally involved in all 
     phases of the restructured system's design, development, 
     operation, and evaluation.
       The new system must not impose any new federal mandates or 
     regulatory burdens upon employers. It must not be financed 
     through the creation of a new tax or an increase in any 
     current tax on business.
       The new system should assist workers in pursuing job search 
     and placement assistance, career advancement, and a career 
     change. Services must be delivered as promptly and 
     effectively as possible to help employers make quicker and 
     less costly connections with prospective employees. Training 
     services must reflect the local and regional skill needs of 
     employers.
       Information regarding career and training services should 
     be offered competitively at the local level. Service 
     providers may include representatives of the private sector. 
     The creation and governance of the streamlined system must be 
     business led. Attempts should be made to factor in the 
     education, employment and training programs of all federal 
     agencies.
       There must be sufficient state and local flexibility 
     incorporated into the design and implementation of the new 
     re-employment system. Provisions to maintain accountability 
     and standards of quality at the state and local level should 
     be a part of the national restructuring plan.
       The current labor market information system must be 
     strengthened and enhanced. Voluntary occupational skills 
     standards should be integrated into this system, so 
     dislocated workers can know exactly what types of skills they 
     will need for certain occupations.
       In addition to strengthening state and local flexibility, 
     the private sector should be encouraged to compete for the 
     delivery of education, employment and training services. One 
     way to help spur local competition and encourage public 
     sector programs to operate more efficiently is to put 
     financial resources directly in the hands of individuals to 
     pursue private or public sector postsecondary education and 
     training. The overall goal should be to improve the learning 
     and achievement of individuals and help them to succeed in 
     the workplace of the 21st century.
       Block grants are considered a viable mechanism for 
     diminishing control from the federal government and 
     increasing state and local flexibility. State and local 
     workforce development plans emerging from the block grants 
     must maintain the goal of preparing students and workers for 
     skills needed in a high performance workplace. Appropriate 
     performance and skill standards and accountability measures 
     should be incorporated into state and local programs that 
     emanate from the block grant system.

  Mr. SIMON. Is it not your understanding that nonresidential programs 
for at-risk youth described under section 161(b) (2) and (3) of the 
bill, could be provided by local, community-based organizations?
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Yes, of course. The States could elect to provide 
these services through such organizations or other organizations in the 
private sector.


                           Amendment No. 2896

  (Purpose: To make amendments with respect to museums and libraries)

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

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Pell] for himself and 
     Mr. Jeffords, proposes an amendment numbered 2896.

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, the House of Representatives recently 
approved the Careers Act which contains extensive provisions regarding 
library services. This is the companion bill to the legislation we are 
now considering and the bill the House will bring to conference, Senate 
bill 143.
  I am of the mind we should have library services provisions formally 
on the table when we go to conference with the House. Thus, the 
amendment now being offered would include the Institute of Museum and 
Library Services reauthorization as part of S. 143.
  Those provisions stress the importance of both museums and libraries 
to literacy, economic development and most importantly, the work force 
development, all of which are relevant and important to the bill now 
under consideration.
  Mr. President, I believe this amendment is or should be considered 
noncontroversial, and I urge its approval.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my 
distinguished colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Pell, and myself 
which would incorporate the Institute of Museum and Library Services as 
part of S. 143, the Workforce Development Act of 1995.
  Libraries have been key players in developing literacy programs and 
it only makes sense to include the Institute for Museum and Library 
Services [IMLS] as part of this bill today. The problem of illiteracy 
is of great concern to me and I believe that we should not pass up this 
opportunity today to recognize the power and purpose that libraries 
have in dealing with this problem and finding solutions to it. 
Libraries have made a positive impact in communities throughout the 
Nation and have been instrumental in enhancing educational and lifelong 
learning opportunities. Because of its focus on literacy as well as 
workforce and economic development, I believe that ensuring that the 
IMLS is part of the S. 143 is an action which will benefit individuals 
in all of our States. The Pell/Jeffords amendment today represents a 
holistic and winning approach to lifelong learning.
  Mr. President, I am especially pleased that the Artifacts Indemnity 
Act has been included as part of this amendment. The Indemnity Program, 
created in 1975, has been an extraordinarily successful program. I 
believe that there has been only one claim for a very modest amount of 
money since it first began 20 years ago. Over the years, I have had 
many opportunities to speak with museum directors who have shared with 
me their thoughts on the importance of this program along with 
frustrations regarding the difficulty they have had in getting 
insurance for their exhibitions to travel throughout the United States, 
or for bringing some of the great U.S. exhibitions to their region. In 
response to those conversations, an extension of the indemnity program 
for domestic exhibitions has been included. We have also moved 
administration of this program to the Institute of Museums and Library 
Services, which I believe is a sensible and logical change that will 
only enhance the program's successes.
  So again, I would like to thank the Senator from Rhode Island for 
offering his assistance in crafting this amendment and look forward to 
its adoption.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I do not believe there is an objection 
on either side of the aisle regarding this amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is right. We appreciate the Senator bringing 
this to the attention of the Members. We hope it will be included.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I urge the adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2896) 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.


                           Amendment No. 2897

                (Purpose: To make technical amendments)

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2897.

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. 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 line 19, strike lines 5 through 14 and insert the 
     following:
       (35) Welfare recipient.--The term ``welfare recipient'' 
     means an individual who receives welfare assistance.
       On page 50, strike lines 7 through 12 and insert the 
     following:
       viduals to participate in the statewide system; and
       (N) followup services for participants who are placed in 
     unsubsidized employment.
       On page 65, lines 5 and 6, strike ``section 103(a)(1)'' and 
     insert ``this subtitle for workforce employment activities''.
       On page 69, line 10, strike ``and'' and insert a comma.
       On page 69, line 14, strike ``and'' and insert ``or''.

[[Page S 14982]]

       On page 70, line 7, strike ``and'' and insert ``or''.
       On page 70, line 14, strike ``and'' and insert ``or''.
       On page 70, line 19, strike ``and'' and insert ``or''.
       On page 70, line 20, strike ``to'' and insert ``for''.
       On page 71, line 12, strike ``and'' and insert ``or''.
       On page 71, line 21, strike ``and'' and insert ``or''.
       On page 96, strike line 6 and insert the following:
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Negotiation and agreement.--After a Governor submits
       On page 96, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
       (B) Workforce education activities.--In carrying out 
     activities under this section, a local partnership or local 
     workforce development board described in subsection (b) may 
     make recommendations with respect to the allocation of funds 
     for, or administration of, workforce education activities in 
     the State involved, but such allocation and administration 
     shall be carried out in accordance with sections 111 through 
     117 and section 119.
       On page 108, strike lines 10 through 12 and insert the 
     following:
       (A) welfare recipients;
       In subparagraph (B)(ii) of the matter inserted on page 114, 
     after line 14, strike ``reduce'' and insert ``reduce by 10 
     percent''.
       In subparagraph (C)(iii) of the matter inserted on page 
     114, after line 14, strike ``strategic plan of the State 
     referred to in section 104(b)(2)'' and insert ``integrated 
     State plan of the State referred to in section 104(b)(5)''.
       After subparagraph (D) of the matter inserted on page 114, 
     after line 14, insert the following:
       (E) Definition.--As used in this paragraph, the term 
     ``portion of the allotment''--
       (i) used with respect to workforce employment activities, 
     means the funds made available under paragraph (1) or (3) of 
     section 103(a) for workforce employment activities (less any 
     portion of such funds made available under section 6 of the 
     Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49e)); and
       (ii) used with respect to workforce education activities, 
     means the funds made available under paragraph (2) or (3) of 
     section 103(a) for workforce education activities.
       On page 175, line 25, strike ``; and'' and insert a 
     semicolon.
       On page 176, line 2, insert ``and'' after the semicolon.
       On page 176, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       (E) career development planning and decisionmaking;
       On page 176, line 11, strike the period and insert ``, 
     including training of counselors, teachers, and other persons 
     to use the products of the nationwide integrated labor market 
     and occupational information system to improve career 
     decisionmaking.''.
       On page 184, lines 18 through 20, strike ``, which models'' 
     and all that follows through ``didactic methods''.
       On page 222, line 10, strike ``from'' and insert ``for''.
       On page 239, line 19, strike ``of'' and insert ``of the''.
       On page 248, line 23, strike ``98-524'' and insert ``98-
     524''.
       On page 250, line 11, strike ``and'' and insert ``and 
     inserting''.
       On page 255, line 25, add a period at the end.
       On page 290, line 14, strike ``to'' and insert ``to the''.
       On page 290, line 17, strike ``(a) In General.--''.
       Beginning on page 290, strike line 23 and all that follows 
     through page 291, line 5.
       On page 292, strike lines 9 through 12 and insert the 
     following:
       (a) In General.--Section 3(a) of the Wagner-Peyser Act (29 
     U.S.C. 49b(a)) is amended to read as follows:
       On page 293, strike lines 2 through 13 and insert the 
     following:
       tion.''.
       On page 294, lines 9 through 14, strike ``subsection (b)'' 
     and all that follows through ``(2)'' and insert ``subsection 
     (b)(2)''.
       On page 296, line 12, strike ``to'' and insert ``to the''.
       On page 304, line 6, strike ``members' '' and insert 
     ``member's''.
       On page 309, lines 20 and 21, strike ``technologies'' and 
     insert ``technologies,''.
       On page 311, line 7, strike ``purchases'' and insert 
     ``purchased''.

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, this is an amendment that bears 
technical and conforming amendments that I believe has been cleared on 
both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we urge the acceptance of this amendment 
and appreciate the working out of the technical issues which have been 
included in this proposal.
  We urge the Senate to accept it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2897) was agreed to.


 the repeal of the mc kinney act provisions for homeless children and 
                                 youth

  Mr. DOMENICI. I would first like to thank Senator Kassebaum for her 
excellent work on this long-awaited legislation to improve the delivery 
of America's work force training and education programs. This is a 
mammoth task well done, and I look forward to final passage this 
morning. Let me say, however, that I have a serious concern about 
homeless children that I would like to clarify with the Senator.
  The legislation before us in its present form repeals the McKinney 
Homeless Assistance Act provisions for the Homeless Children and Youth 
Program. I believe this is an oversight and I agree with the chairman's 
intent to repeal the McKinney Act job training provisions to include 
them in this much improved legislation for those purposes. 
Unfortunately, the repeal language includes a repeal of the program for 
homeless children. This critical program helps homeless children to 
enroll in and attend school.
  Before the McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, almost half of all 
school aged homeless children were not in school at any given time. The 
very poor attendance was caused in large part by school policies that 
did not take into account the unique problems of homeless families.
  Residency requirements, for example, often prevented homeless 
families from enrolling their children in school because by definition 
a homeless family did not have an address that could be used to prove 
residence in a district. Furthermore, because a number of shelters only 
allowed people to stay for 30 days at a time, homeless families were 
often forced to move from shelter to shelter.
  If these shelters were zoned for different schools, as is often the 
case, the children were forced to transfer as frequently as the 
families moved. This is a most difficult hurdle for any family, and 
more so for homeless families. Frequent school changes impede rather 
than promote the education of homeless children. Transfer of records 
between schools slowed the process even more, often keeping children 
out of school for weeks at a time.
  To address this problem, we created the Education for Homeless 
Children and Youth Program in the McKinney Act. This program for 
homeless children requires States and local governments to ease the 
types of barriers I have described and to improve the support 
mechanisms for homeless children in schools. This program also provides 
money to States to identify homeless students, ease transfers and 
placements, and provide tutoring and school supplies.
  I am proud to say that this program has made a difference. Since 
1987, school attendance by homeless children nationally has risen from 
50 percent to 82 percent and continues to increase each year. These 
improvements occur despite the fact that the number of homeless 
children continues to rise with the number of homeless families, as 
reported by the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
  For homeless children, education will be their best chance to break 
the cycle of poverty. This McKinney Act program ensures that homeless 
children will have access to that chance. Now is not the time to repeal 
this program.
  I understand, Senator Kassebaum, that you have indicated your support 
for the continuation of the McKinney Act Education for Homeless 
Children and Youth Program. Since the technical language of S. 143 
repeals this program along with job training for homeless adults, I 
also understand that it is your intention to revisit this matter in 
conference.
  I hope the Senator can reassure me that it is not her intent to 
repeal the McKinney Act program for homeless children, and that she 
will work in conference to assure that the final bill contains explicit 
protections for homeless children so that the progress we have made in 
helping homeless children continues.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Yes, I support the McKinney Act program for homeless 
children, and I appreciate the effort of the Senator from New Mexico in 
bringing this matter to the attention of the Senate. I assure the 
Senator and the Senate that I will work in conference to protect this 
program for homeless children by accepting language to ensure its 
continuation. I thank the Senator on behalf of homeless children and 
their families. They 

[[Page S 14983]]
know the full benefits of this McKinney Act program for school 
placement and support and should have every assurance of its 
continuation.

                          ____________________