[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 157 (Wednesday, October 11, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14983-S14993]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  NOTE

  Due to a printing error, a statement by Senator Harkin on page S14840 
of the Record of October 10, 1995, appears incorrectly. The permanent 
Record will be corrected to reflect the following correct statement.


 SUPPORT OF THE PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Disability Policy, I would like to take a few minutes to discuss the 
applicability of S. 143, the Work Force Development Act, to individuals 
with disabilities.
  I would like to compliment Senator Kassebaum, the sponsor of the 
legislation and chair of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, 
and Senator Frist, the chair of the Subcommittee on Disability Policy, 
for including specific provisions in S. 143 that will enhance our 
Nation's ability to address the employment-related needs of individuals 
with disabilities, including individuals with significant disabilities. 
I am particularly pleased that these provisions were developed on a 
bipartisan basis and enjoy the broad-based support of the disability 
community.
  On January 10, 1995, the Labor Committee heard testimony from Tony 
Young, on behalf of the employment and training task force of the 
Consortium for Citizens With Disabilities. CCD urged the Senate to 
recognize the positive advances made in the 1992 amendments to the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and to take a two-pronged approach to 
addressing the needs of individuals with disabilities in our jobs 
consolidation legislation. I am pleased that the Senate bill adopted 
this two-pronged approach.
  Under prong one, S. 143 guarantees individuals with disabilities 
meaningful and effective access to the core services and optional 
services that are made available to nondisabled individuals in generic 
work force employment activities and to work force education activities 
described in the legislation, consistent with nondiscrimination 
provisions set out in section 106(f)(7) of the legislation, section 504 
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and title II of the Americans With 
Disabilities Act.
  The commitment to ensuring meaningful and effective access to generic 
services for individuals with disabilities is critical. Advocates for 
individuals with disabilities have often expressed concern that many 
current generic job training programs such as JTPA have not met the 
needs of individuals with disabilities. Ensuring access to generic 
services is critical for many people with disabilities who can benefit 
from such services.
  The promise of access to generic services is also illustrated through 
other provisions in S. 143. The purposes of the bill--(section 2(b))--
include creating coherent, integrated statewide work force development 
systems designed to develop more fully the academic, occupational, and 
literacy skills of all segments of the population and ensuring that all 
segments of the work force will obtain the skills necessary to earn 
wages sufficient to maintain the highest quality of living in the 
world. The content of the State plan set out in section 104(c) of S. 
143 must include information describing how the State will identify the 
current and future work force development needs of all segments of the 
population of the State. The term all is intended to include 
individuals with disabilities.
  The accountability provisions in S. 143--(section 121(c)(4)--specify 
that States must develop quantifiable benchmarks to measure progress 
toward meeting State goals for specified populations, including at a 
minimum, individuals with disabilities.
  Under S. 143, State vocational rehabilitation agencies must be 
involved in the planning and implementation of the generic system. For 
example, under section 104(d) of S. 143, the part of the State plan 
related to the strategic plan must describe how the State agency 
officials responsible for vocational rehabilitation collaborated in the 
development of the strategic plan. Under section 105(a) of S. 143, the 
work force development boards must include a representative from the 
State agency responsible for vocational rehabilitation and under 
section 118 of S. 143, local work force development boards must include 
one or more individuals with disabilities or their representatives.
  Under prong two the current program of one-stop shopping for persons 
with disabilities, particularly those with severe disabilities, 
established under title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 
most recently in 1992, is retained, strengthened, and made an integral 
component of the statewide work force development system.
  The current vocational rehabilitation system has helped millions of 
individuals with disabilities over the past 75 years to achieve 
employment. Since the 1992 amendments, the number of individuals 
assisted in achieving employment each year has increased steadily. In 
fiscal year 1994, 203,035 individuals achieved employment, up 5.8 
percent from fiscal year 1992, the year just prior to the passage of 
the amendments. Data for the first three quarters of fiscal year 1995 
show a 8.4 percent increase in the number of individuals achieving 
employment as compared to the first three quarters for fiscal year 
1994.
  In fiscal year 1993, 85.7 percent of the individuals achieving 
employment through vocational rehabilitation were either competitively 
employed or self-employed. Seventy-seven percent of individuals who 
achieved employment as a result of the vocational rehabilitation 
program report that their own income is the primary source of support 
rather than depending on entitlement or family members.
  The percent of persons with earned income of any kind increased from 
21 percent at application to 90 percent at closure. The gain in the 
average hourly wage rate from application to the achievement of an 
employment outcome was $4.36 per person. Of the individuals achieving 
employment in fiscal year 1993, their mean weekly earnings at the time 
of their application to the program was $32.20, compared to $204.10 at 
closure, an average weekly increase of $164.90.
  In 1993, the General Accounting Office [GAO] found that an individual 
who completed a vocational rehabilitation program was significantly 
more likely than an individual who did not complete the program of 
working for wages 5 years after exiting the program. In addition, the 
GAO found that individuals who achieved an employment outcome 
demonstrated four times the gain in wages compared to the other groups 
studied.
  I am also pleased to share with my colleagues the positive impact 
that vocational rehabilitation is having in my home State of Iowa. 
During fiscal year 1993-94, 5,717 Iowans with disabilities were 
rehabilitated through the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation 
Services [DVRS]. At referral to DVRS, 33 percent have weekly earnings; 
at closure the rate went to 98 percent. Average weekly earnings rose 
from $49.94 at referral to $229.45 at closure. In addition, the Iowa 
Department for the Blind provided 765 blind persons with vocational 
rehabilitation services. At closure the average weekly income was 
$352.00. Seventy-three percent of those rehabilitated found work in the 
competitive labor market, including work in occupations such as 
psychologist, tax accountant, teacher, food service, and radio repair.
  Mr. President, as I explained previously in my remarks, under S. 143, 
title I of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended most recently in 1992, is 
not repealed; rather it is retained, strengthened, and made an integral 
component of the statewide work force development system.
  For example, the findings and purposes section of title I of the 
Rehabilitation Act are amended to make it clear that programs of 
vocational rehabilitation are intended to be an integral component of a 
State's work force development system. Further, the amendments clarify 
that linkages between the vocational rehabilitation program established 
under title I of the Rehabilitation Act and other components of the 
statewide work force development system are critical to ensure 
effective and meaningful participation by individuals with disabilities 
in work force development activities.
  Section 14 and section 106 of title I of the Rehabilitation Act 
pertaining to 

[[Page S 14984]]
evaluations of the program are amended to make it clear that, to the 
maximum extent appropriate, standards for determining effectiveness of 
the program must be consistent with State benchmarks established under 
the Work Force Development Act for all employment programs.
  Provisions in the State plan under title I of the Rehabilitation Act 
of 1973 are also amended to include specific strategies for 
strengthening the vocational rehabilitation program as an integral 
component of the statewide work force development system established by 
the State. A cooperative agreement will be required to link the VR 
agency with the consolidated system. The cooperative agreement will 
address each State's unique system and will assure, for example, 
reciprocal referrals between the VR agency and the other components of 
the statewide system. The linkages will also assure that the staff at 
both agencies are adequately and appropriately trained. Most 
importantly, the linkages must be replicated at the local level so that 
the local office of the VR agency is working closely with the one-stop 
center in the community to make a seamless system of services a 
reality.
  Many State vocational rehabilitation agencies, including the agency 
in Iowa, are already involved with efforts to link vocational 
rehabilitation with other components of the statewide system of work 
force development. The States that report the most success are those 
where the vocational rehabilitation agencies are involved in the 
consolidation efforts at the early planning stages. The other aspect 
that is critical to ensure success is the replication of cooperative 
agreements in local communities so that the VR counselors are working 
closely with the other job training programs in the statewide system.
  In closing, Mr. President, I strongly support the provisions of S. 
143 pertaining to individuals with disabilities. The bill ensures 
meaningful and effective access to the generic training and education 
programs. In addition, the amendments to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 
will strengthen and support the involvement of vocational 
rehabilitation in a State's seamless system of work force development 
while ensuring the continued integrity and viability of the current 
program.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the Workforce 
Development Act. It confronts one of the most important issues 
affecting this Nation today--that is to make sure that America's work 
force is job ready for the 21st century.
  Mr. President, I like this bill because it creates a one-stop 
delivery system for employment services. It recognizes the needs of 
dislocated workers; and it helps to streamline the job training process 
for everyone, including welfare recipients, by consolidating existing 
job training programs.
  First, I like one-stop shopping, and I like streamlining the process. 
With this bill, States will be required to create one-stop career 
centers offering access to anyone who needs it. One-stop career centers 
mean more centralized services all in one place. They make the job 
training system more efficient and more effective.
  Anyone who wants to can go to one location for job placement, job 
assistance, and job referral. One-stop centers link workers to the full 
range of services they will need, and I think that is great.
  My State of Maryland is ahead of the game in creating one-stop 
centers. Maryland's one stop center in Columbia, MD is up and running 
and helping to make job training services easier and more efficient for 
all Maryland workers. It is an idea that I wholeheartedly support.
  Second, Mr. President, I especially like the amendments to this bill 
that protect dislocated workers. Senator Dodd has worked very hard to 
include a provision that creates a rapid response emergency fund for 
people affected by base closing, plant closing, and natural disasters.
  In Maryland, we have seen tremendous job loss, plant closures, and 
company downsizing. According to the Baltimore Sun, Maryland could lose 
20,000 to 50,000 Federal jobs in the next 5 years. That is a lot of 
jobs, a lot of people, and lot of families that will receive a big 
financial blow.
  The Dodd amendment is very important to Maryland families who have 
lost income due to base closing--like Fort Richie, White Oak, David 
Taylor in Annapolis, and the Army Publications Distribution Center in 
Middle River.
  These workers are men and women who have mortgages to pay, homes to 
heat, and other bills to pay in order to keep their families going. 
They need to know that their concerns were heard.
  Further, Mr. President, Senator Breaux and Senator Daschle have also 
offered an amendment to create vouchers for dislocated workers. The 
amendment further improves the bill by maximizing dislocated workers 
ability to chose what job training best fits their needs. They can make 
their own judgments and determine their own future.
  I support the Dodd and Breaux amendments on behalf of all the 
Marylanders who have lost their jobs or who stand to lose their jobs 
today, tomorrow and in the future.
  I am also pleased that we will continue our commitment to workers who 
have lost their jobs through changes in the international market.
  I am talking about the importance of keeping our promises. Promises 
we made to protect workers from the possible effects of NAFTA and GATT.
  I am pleased that this bill will not repeal the Target Adjustment 
Act, and instead preserves our responsibility to help dislocated 
workers. That is why I support Senator Moynihan's amendment to take the 
Trade Adjustment Act out of this bill.
  Third, Mr. President, the Senate recently considered welfare reform 
legislation. Welfare reform and the job training bill we consider today 
must work hand-in-hand.
  If we want to be successful in keeping people off welfare, we must 
have in place a system that will allow people to change careers and 
change skills when the economy and technology forces them to.
  I think that good job training programs are important to making 
welfare reform efforts successful. Welfare reform is about helping 
people get into jobs and stay jobs through job training and part-time 
work. This bill does that.
  The one-stop centers created in this bill will allow welfare 
recipients to get the help they need to be job ready. They will get job 
counseling, skills assessment and other services all in one place. I 
believe that everyone can be well prepared, self sufficient and 
successful.
  Finally, Mr. President, a lot of progress was made to improve this 
bill since the Labor Committee markup. I support the changes and the 
amendments improving the job training programs so that they operate 
more efficiently.
  But, I am pleased that this bill does not repeal title V of the Older 
Americans Act, the Senior Employment Program.
  When the Labor Committee considered this bill, I had very serious 
concerns about how it would impact on our seniors. I offered an 
amendment in committee to take the Senior Employment Program out of the 
block grant because it provides an important service to seniors in this 
country. And although my amendment lost in committee, the Senior 
Employment Program has been removed from the bill we consider today.
  The Senior Employment Program provides over 100,000 seniors an 
opportunity for employment, community service, and self-reliance.
  Throughout this Nation, the Senior Employment Program is essential to 
providing important community services. Libraries are kept open in 
Baltimore so children can read. Ailing older people and children 
receive care through child and adult day care. Seniors and homebound 
persons in Catonsville and Hagerstown receive nutritious meals at 
senior centers and through Meals-on-Wheels.
  Mr. President, this program is based on the principles of personal 
responsibility, lifelong learning, and service to community. It is too 
important to seniors to be considered as part of this bill, and it 
should rightfully be considered as part of the Older American's Act 
reauthorization.
  I would like to thank the Labor Committee chair, Senator Kassebaum, 
for 

[[Page S 14985]]
her willingness to work with me to remove the Senior Employment Program 
from this block grant.
  Mr. President, I am all for the idea of one-stop shopping, 
streamlining and simplifying the job training process, providing 
assistance for job readiness, and promoting some state flexibility. I 
am supporting this bill because I believe that job training and 
education are vital to creating a productive work force.
  I commend Senator Kassebaum and Senator Kennedy for their work on 
this bill and I look forward to its passage.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today the Senate will complete its 
consideration of the Work Force Development Act, legislation which will 
reform the existing system of Federal job training programs. As a 
member of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, I recommend this 
bill to my colleagues for three specific reasons.
  This bill before us will reduce the size and scope of the Federal 
Government's bureaucracy by eliminating a number of ineffective or 
duplicative job training programs and, in addition, consolidating many 
others. This legislation will shift much of the resources and 
responsibility for operating the remaining programs to the States which 
are better capable of designing and running effective education and job 
training programs. Finally--and I believe most importantly--these 
reforms will help ensure that American workers have the necessary 
education and skills to compete successfully in the global economy our 
Nation faces as we enter the 21st century.
  Before I elaborate on each of these important endeavors, let me first 
commend the Senator from Kansas, the chairman of the Senate Committee 
on Labor and Human Resources, for her dedication to this issue and for 
her efforts to develop this measure and bring it to the floor. This has 
been an area of longstanding interest for the chairman, and her staff 
along with all of the members of the committee have been working on 
this legislation the entire year. In fact, job training reform was the 
subject of the first hearings the Labor Committee held this session.
  Mr. President, it also should be noted that the chairman and the 
committee staff have worked very closely with the Governors--Democrat 
and Republican alike--in developing a structure for this work force 
development system which will allow the necessary Federal oversight to 
ensure accountability for the States while still providing them with 
tremendous flexibility. As with welfare reform, this bill represents 
the advent of a renewed effort toward consultation and cooperation 
between the Federal Government and the States. This new Federal-State 
relationship is critical not only to making programs such as job 
training and welfare successful, but it is essential to solving many 
other problems confronting our society as well.
  Mr. President, let me return to the accomplishments of this 
legislation. First is the issue of eliminating unnecessary duplication 
and bureaucracy among the existing Federal job training programs.
  At last count, according to the Government Accounting Office, there 
are 163 separate Federal job training programs being run by 1 of 15 
Federal agencies. Altogether, these programs cost taxpayers more than 
$20 billion a year. While those numbers alone are astounding, what is 
even more surprising is the incredible overlap and redundancy of many 
of these programs. For instance, there are at least 60 programs aimed 
at assisting the economically disadvantaged, including 34 programs 
designed to address literacy alone. To add to the confusion, many of 
these same programs have differing standards for assessing income and 
other eligibility criteria.
  However, Mr. President, perhaps the most shocking aspect of the 
present Federal job training system is the near total lack of 
accountability. There is essentially no reliable record of results. 
Fewer than half of the sixty-two training programs scrutinized in a 
recent GAO investigation bothered to keep track of whether participants 
had obtained jobs following their training. And only a handful of those 
programs chose to evaluate whether the training that was provided 
proved integral to securing employment or whether the individual 
participant could have obtained the job without receiving the training 
in question.
  Mr. President, these facts alone would warrant a dramatic overhaul of 
the Federal job training system with the goal of eliminating 
ineffective programs, consolidating programs with identical or similar 
constituencies and services, and creating a reliable measure of 
accountability. However, I believe we should go further. And in this 
bill, we do.
  In the legislation which is before us, we give the States the 
resources and the responsibility to establish their own comprehensive, 
integrated statewide work force development systems. We allow each 
State to develop a network of education, job training and employment 
services which reflects their own unique needs and circumstances. Yet 
we also demand results from the States and have devised a means by 
which we can assure fairness, integrity, and results.
  Why, Mr. President, is it so important that the States be given the 
responsibility for running these programs? There are two basic reasons. 
The first is efficiency. It should come as no surprise that any Federal 
job training system--responsible for serving all 50 States--would 
suffer from inordinate overlap and redundancy. The present system has 
19 programs which target youth, as well as several programs serving 
each of a variety of constituencies, including veterans, seniors, 
dislocated workers, and displaced homemakers.
  States, however, are better situated to determine the actual needs of 
particular constituencies--to the extent those needs differ from that 
of other individuals seeking assistance. And States are much more 
likely than the Federal Government to have an accurate assessment of 
the realistic job opportunities which exist within the State's economy. 
As Father Bill Cunningham of Detroit's fabulously successful Focus: 
Hope training program told the Labor Committee back in January: Before 
any job training program can be successful, we must understand the 
difference between simply providing jobs for people and that of 
providing capable and skilled persons to meet the job demands. That is 
a critical distinction, but one that is often overlooked.
  Mr. President, a significant problem with the current system is that 
it is both diffuse and duplicative; individuals seeking assistance 
often have no idea of where to turn for the help they need. And the 
various outlets for services usually have no capability or network they 
can utilize to connect those individuals with particular needs with the 
services they require. The States are better suited to devise and 
operate a comprehensive, integrated system that will address these 
shortcomings while still remaining sensitive to local needs and 
problems. Whereas the current system generally creates an new program 
to address every exigent circumstance, States can create a central 
system which will meet a variety of needs and demands and serve a 
diverse array of clientele.
  In the State of Michigan, we have already spent enormous time and 
effort creating our own statewide work force development system, one 
that we call Michigan Works! The Michigan Works! system utilizes an 
approach known as no wrong door. This concept means that through 
whatever point you access the State work force development system, you 
will either be directly provided or put in contact with any of the 
services you need.
  Mr. President, this is the case:
  If you are an adult on public assistance trying to get your high 
school equivalency degree so you can get a job; or
  If you are working at a low skill, low wage job, and you are desiring 
to learn a trade or a skill which will allow you to find a better job 
and earn a better living to support you and your family; or
  If you are a laid-off assembly line worker who wants to receive 
computer training or another high-technology skill to prepare you for 
the high-wage jobs that are increasingly the boon of our economy.
  Regardless of who you are or where you enter the system, all the 
services you could possibly need are only a phone call away because 
Michigan Works! has instituted a 1-800 number to 

[[Page S 14986]]
facilitate access into its work force development system.
  Mr. President, the second reason that States ought to be given 
control of these job training programs is one to which I have already 
alluded: namely, flexibility.
  Each State has its own distinct demographic or economic concerns that 
require a unique approach, and Michigan is no different. However, 
Michigan must also take into consideration its geographical diversity 
as well. Michigan's southeastern and south central regions are 
primarily urban and suburban, whereas the western and northern portions 
of the Michigan's lower peninsula are predominantly rural. And the most 
obvious unique feature that Michigan has to contend with is the Upper 
Peninsula. While the Upper Peninsula is in many areas is essentially 
remote wilderness, there are still over 300,000 people living there. 
With the area economy linked as it is to agriculture and tourism, the 
unemployment rate during the winter months can be as high as 20 to 25 
percent. And this is true as well for a number of areas in the northern 
portion of the Lower Peninsula.
  Obviously, these contrasting areas will require vastly different 
approaches by the Michigan Works! system if the residents of these 
areas are all to be served adequately. It would not be logistically 
feasible or economically efficient for us to have every possible 
resource or service that a person in the Upper Peninsula might need 
available just around the corner. That is just not practical. So for 
Michigan it is imperative that options exist beyond the conventional 
notion of the one-stop career center, where all of the requisite 
services are available in one central location.
  Michigan Works! envisions having several different service delivery 
options. One of these, the multiple points of entry would be ideal for 
the Upper Peninsula since it proposes to electronically link work force 
development agencies with service delivery providers and customers--
even when all three may be separated geographically. Another option 
would possibly be ideal for the rural areas of the northern southern 
peninsula and among the smaller cities sprinkled throughout western 
Michigan. The hub and cluster model would contain a main center with 
several multiple points of entry throughout the given region to provide 
outreach and additional service delivery. These mechanisms could be 
combined with one-stop centers in our major urban areas to comprise 
Michigan's statewide work force development system. This array of 
options is possible precisely because of the flexibility afforded 
States in this legislation.
  Finally, Mr. President, the most compelling reason I find for 
reforming our Federal job training system is the issue of our 
international economic competitiveness. To paraphrase the conclusion 
drawn in the committee report: Faced with increasingly stiff global 
competition, corporate restructuring, and continuing Federal budget 
deficits, our country cannot afford to support a job training system 
that wastes precious resources, fails to help train people for the jobs 
of tomorrow, and does not assist employers by providing a work force 
which meets their labor needs.
  One of the criticisms of this bill is that it does not mandate the 
continuation of local work force development boards. While that is 
true, States are still required to institute some form of State-local 
partnership to promote adequate consultation and cooperation. And if 
States do establish local development boards, a majority of the members 
of these board must come from business and industry. Business must be a 
key, if not dominant, feature in the decisionmaking process in order 
for any work force development system to succeed. In Michigan, we are 
already committed to having local development boards, and we are 
committed to ensuring that the private sector is the dominant force on 
those panels.
  Mr. President, to encourage States to establish local work force 
development boards, this bill offers such States an expanded array of 
permissible economic development activities for which they can utilize 
funds from their so-called flex account. These economic development 
activities represent the cutting edge of any truly innovative work 
force development system. They include:
  Customized assessments of the skills of workers and an analysis of 
the skill needs of employers in the State;
  Upgrading the skills of incumbent workers;
  Productivity and quality improvement training programs for small- and 
medium-sized employers;
  Recognition and use of voluntary, industry developed skill standards;
  Training activities in companies that are developing modernization 
plans in conjunction with State industrial extension service offices; 
and
  Onsite, industry specific training programs supportive of industrial 
and economic development.
  Mr. President, I believe activities such as these are instrumental to 
any successful statewide work force development system. They are also 
exactly the type of policies which will improve our ability as a Nation 
to prosper in an increasingly competitive modern global economy. With 
the pace of advances made in technology and the increasing frequency 
with which American workers change jobs, it is of paramount importance 
that workers, businesses, and whole industries be able to adjust 
rapidly to such circumstances by bolstering existing training or 
learning new skills. Mr. President, now is the time to lay the ground 
work for such a capability and enhance our competitiveness heading into 
the next century. This bill represents a golden opportunity to 
accomplish this important objective.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, I support this legislation because it 
accomplishes three of the primary goals I had in coming to Washington 
as a U.S. Senator. It eliminates Federal Government waste by reducing 
ineffective or duplicative programs--and the bureaucracy which oversees 
them. It gives to States, localities, and the private sector much 
stronger control over matters such as education, job training, and 
economic development. And last, I believe this legislation will produce 
a vastly improved American work force development system and, in turn, 
increase American competitiveness in the years to come.
  It is for those reasons that I strongly support this legislation, and 
I sincerely hope that the vast majority of my colleagues will see fit 
to support it as well.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a brief description of 
eight different training programs which are part of the Michigan Works! 
system be entered in the Record.
  If my colleagues will look they will see that these programs are very 
innovative and quite often address a particular constituency or a 
unique need. These are exactly the types of programs which I believe 
will prosper and proliferate under the legislation we are considering 
today.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered printed in the 
Record, as follows:

          Examples of Michigan Work Force Development Programs


        EARN WHILE YOU LEARN (Nominating Sponsor: The Job Force)

       Provides opportunities for youth to develop modern 
     employment skills while instilling a spirit of community 
     service.
       Students decide when, where, and how the project will 
     proceed.
       Uniqueness: 1994 NaCO Award for Excellence recipient (one 
     of three nationally).
       Results: 80 percent of the students suffered no learning 
     loss; 60 percent increased their scores on the Michigan 
     Assessment Test in either Math or Reading.


             ACCELERATED TRAINING PROGRAMS (The Job Force)

       Bay De Noc Community College, Michigan Works!, MESC, Delta/
     Schoolcraft ISD, and local employers have collaborated their 
     strengths, talents and resources in a flexible, results-
     oriented education and training system.
       Program has integrated and coordinated various local, State 
     and Federal resources to offer accelerated training program 
     to local residents that meet the demands of the employer 
     community.
       The first venture was for an accelerated machine tool 
     program. The program lasts for 12 weeks. There are 9 students 
     enrolled. Eighteen employers will be on the training site to 
     interview prospective students for employment.
       Efforts are underway for the recruitment for a new class 
     beginning in August. It is anticipated that 20 students will 
     be enrolled into this program.

[[Page S 14987]]



           MDS CAA/HEAD START/FAMILY SERVICE (The Job Force)

       The Job Force and MDS CAA Head Start program have joined 
     together in developing the Family Service Center (FSC).
       FSC is a demonstration project which will strengthen the 
     capacity of both agencies in addressing the problems of 
     families reaching self-sufficiency as they relate to 
     illiteracy, employability, and substance abuse.
       FSC offers employability skills training, employment 
     training positions, while coordinating with DSS programs.
       Program evaluation has reported that FSC participating 
     families exceeded control families in almost all employment 
     preparation and job seeker behaviors.


           TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION PROGRAM TITLE IIC (Region II)

       Participating agencies: Jackson ISD, Hillsdale ISD, and 
     Lenawee ISD.
       Exposes JTPA eligible youth in a process to better 
     understand the utilization of various work-related problem 
     solving technologies.
       Goal: Arouse participant career interests and encourage the 
     development of individual education and employment goals 
     thereby resulting in continued school enrollment and 
     attendance.


  CHRISTIAN OUTREACH REHABILITATION AND DEVELOPMENT (Berrien/Cass/Van 
                            Buren Co. SDA's)

       Collaboration between several organizations utilizing 
     JTPA's work experience program.
       Assists the 21st Initiative Neighborhood Housing Program 
     create safe, affordable high quality homes for purchase by 
     low and moderate income families.
       Provides hands-on job training of basic construction 
     skills, work ethic and work maturity.
       Results: 85.7 percent positive retention rate through June, 
     1995.


         MEDICAL INSURANCE BILLING (MIB) (Kalamazoo/St. Joseph)

       A training program that is employer driven based on high 
     demand, high wages and excellent placement and retention 
     rates.
       Participating agencies: local hospital, Kalamazoo Valley 
     Community College, private industry, Upjohn Institute, and 
     the PIC.
       The hospital initiated the MIB program by identifying a 
     need existed.
       Kalamazoo Valley CC developed a customized training program 
     and hired trainers.
       The MIB program included core instructors who were employed 
     in the medical field.
       Customer satisfaction surveys received after the first MIB 
     training resulted in improvements and changes.
       Within 5 weeks of completing the training, 54 percent of 
     the participants were employed in a medical practice with an 
     average wage over $7.50 /hr.


                    WORKPLACE INCUBATOR (Thumb Area)

       Workplace incubators are designed to provide a simulated 
     workplace situation which (1) supports regular work 
     experience habits; (2) supports exposure to varying 
     occupational areas; and (3) supports the overall development 
     of an individual's work ethic.
       Operating within the county-based Vocational Technical 
     Centers in each of the four counties of the SDA.
       Significant roles in preparing individuals for the real 
     ``world of work.''
       Uniqueness--one of the unique features of the incubators is 
     its cost effect/cost efficient method of promoting and 
     utilizing collaborative partnerships.
       Partnership between DSS, ISD's, CBO's, local health dept, 
     community colleges, adult ed providers, Cooperative 
     Extension, local literacy, area employers, numerous non-
     profit agencies, MESC, CMH, and MRS.
       Results: incubators compliment all other job training 
     activities by adding the ``real world of work'' flavor in a 
     relatively compact period of time.
       Incubators are a cost effective/cost efficient job training 
     activity which can be tailored to suit the needs of any 
     locale and/or target population, and can easily be 
     assimilated into most job training curriculums.


                    WOMEN FIRST! (Macomb/St. Clair)

       Began in Jan. 1993 as a model targeted at communities where 
     a higher percentage of female heads of household are living 
     below the poverty level.
       Project was committed to resolving 100 percent of the 
     barriers that prevented women from successfully completing 
     training programs that would start them on the road to 
     economic independence by jointly coordinating outreach, case 
     management and follow-up support.
       The project has exemplified what can be accomplished when 
     two agencies work together on behalf of customers.
       Joint outreach coordinated by the PIC and Macomb Co 
     Community Services Agency.
       Results: Exceeded planned enrollment. As of May, three 
     women were still attending training and 76 percent of the 
     women were employed as a result of the Women First program.


               INDIAN POSTSECONDARY VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am interested in preserving the 
current policy and practice in the Carl Perkins Act for Indian 
postsecondary vocational institutions. During each of the last 6 years 
$4 million has been authorized and $2.9 million has been appropriated 
each year to provide some stability and base operational support for 
the nationally accredited tribal postsecondary vocational education 
institutions. Both the Crownpoint Institute of Technology in New Mexico 
and the United Tribes Technical College in North Dakota are currently 
supported with these funds. My concern is that this support not be 
abandoned in the legislation under consideration. I understand that the 
senior Senator from Arizona, who chairs the Committee of Indian 
Affairs, would also like to address this issue.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New Mexico. I 
support the provisions in Senate bill 143 and would oppose any effort 
that would earmark funding for a specific Indian vocational 
institution, at the expense of all other Indian higher education 
institutions. I remind Senator Bingaman that the American Indian Higher 
Education Consortium, in a September 8, 1995, letter to him, strongly 
opposed such a proposal. I agree with them. To the extent there is less 
funding available for all 29 tribal postsecondary institutions 
throughout Indian Country in the coming fiscal years, the reductions 
should be shouldered by all of these schools in an equitable manner and 
in proportion to how the fiscal year 1995 funds were allocated. I know 
that this is the intention of my colleague from New Mexico. And, in 
fact, that is the intention of provisions that were developed by the 
Committee on Indian Affairs and that were incorporated into S. 143.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased to join this discussion to 
clarify the intentions of The Workforce Development Act, S. 143, with 
regard to continued funding for Crownpoint Institute of Technology 
[CIT]. The fundamental concern we all have is that in replacing the 
Carl Perkins Act we are also potentially removing the only support CIT 
has for its basic operating expenses, and we clearly want to avoid this 
kind of financial disaster for CIT. The problem arises because CIT is 
the only tribally controlled community college or postsecondary 
vocational institute in Indian country that is not funded through the 
Department of the Interior. This odd situation is the result of the 
enabling legislation for Tribally Controlled Community Colleges that 
allows each tribe to have only one college. Since CIT and the Navajo 
Community College [NCC] are both on the Navajo Nation, only NCC 
qualifies for Interior funding under this act. CIT has relied on the 
Carl Perkins Act for its basic operating expenses, and receives no 
Interior Department funding. While fully supporting the block grant 
concept in this legislation, we want to assure the continuation of CIT 
and affirm the intention of this legislation to do so.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senators. I have tried to maintain existing 
protections for the Crownpoint institution because of the important 
work it accomplishes. I do not want that to be at the expense of other 
fine tribal schools. And I thank the Senator from Arizona for 
clarifying that if there are funding reductions, they be applied 
proportionately to the tribal schools affected. I would ask the 
chairwoman of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Senator 
Kassebaum, whether she shares the views set forth by Senator McCain?
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I thank the Senators for their comments. I wish to 
associate myself with Senator McCain's remarks in this regard. In a 
cooperative effort of our two committees, Senator McCain and I 
developed these provisions with the intention that funding be 
authorized among the various tribal schools in proportion to the 
Federal allocations that they have received in prior years.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to additionally point out to 
the Senator from New Mexico that the House and Senate Committee report 
language reflects the intent that these funds should be distributed in 
the manner we have set forth.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I do thank the Senators for their remarks. It is my 
understanding then that if overall funding levels are maintained, the 
equivalent of the level of base operational support provided in fiscal 
year 1995 should be allocated to these Indian vocational education 
institutions. But if funding for these purposes is less than fiscal 
year 1995 levels, a lesser amount would 

[[Page S 14988]]
be distributed based on each school's share of the overall amount it 
received in 1995.
  Mr. McCAIN. That is my understanding.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate these clarifications and 
the commitment shown by Senators McCain, Kassebaum, and Domenici.


               Reforming the Federal Job Training System

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I intend to vote for this job training 
legislation as an indication of my support for efforts to reform the 
Federal job training system into an integrated, comprehensive, State-
based work force development system that serves the real needs of 
unemployed and underemployed workers. I believe the current system does 
need to be reformed, streamlined, and made more decentralized, and its 
performance must be measured more accurately. Though there are parts of 
this bill with which I still seriously disagree, I will vote today to 
move the process forward and send the bill into conference with the 
House.
  We started this process several years ago when Democrats developed 
our own proposal to streamline the job training system. The scores of 
Federal programs, which spend over $20 billion annually, must be made 
more coordinated and more coherent, and must better meet the actual 
needs of job-seekers. On that we are all agreed.
  We have come a long way from the original version of this bill that 
was put forth by Senator Kassebaum. The version we will vote on today, 
while still imperfect, is a more streamlined, more responsible piece of 
legislation than the one that was considered by the full Labor and 
Human Resources Committee some months ago.
  The governance structure established by the original bill was 
unwieldy, unaccountable, and open to serious abuse, potentially giving 
quasi-private entities approval power over billions in Federal 
spending. It has been much improved, and now final authority and 
accountability rests with the Secretaries of Education and Labor, where 
it should be. There are still some refinements to be made in 
conference, including stronger accountability mechanisms and standards, 
to protect against potential abuses, but it is a marked improvement 
over the original proposal.
  Since the House does not have such an unwieldy and convoluted 
governance structure, I hope the conferees will streamline and simplify 
it, making the lines of accountability clearer in the final bill. The 
provisions that require states to develop Statewide work force 
development plans, in consultation with local authorities, and that 
require benchmarking of their performance, with specific penalties if 
they have not performed well, have also been improved.
  The amended version of the bill retains Job Corps as a national 
program, with strict national oversight standards, a zero-tolerance 
drug policy, and other key reforms. For people in my State served by 
the HHH Job Corps Center in the Twin Cities, which serves hard-to-serve 
young people who might otherwise be effectively shut out of our social 
and economic life together, retaining and strengthening Job Corps, 
while providing for new guidelines and performance benchmarks, was a 
key step forward. We heard in the committee from young people who had 
been helped by the HHH Center's programs, and by others in Job Corps 
Programs throughout the country. Though some Job Corps centers are in 
need of reform, much of which is required by this bill, I believe 
strongly in the program and will continue to support it.
  We have also fixed the outrageous provision in the original bill that 
would have repealed the Federal Trade Adjustment Assistance Program for 
workers dislocated by U.S. trade policies--including NAFTA and GATT. I 
was an original cosponsor of this amendment because those programs have 
served thousands of people in my State, providing both job training and 
income support assistance during interim periods while they looked for 
new jobs, and I did not believe we could go back on our word to provide 
workers with such aid. Even those who supported NAFTA made this 
commitment to help these workers, and it would have been truly 
outrageous if our amendment had not been approved. Since the House 
version of the bill does not repeal this program either, I am confident 
the final version of the bill will preserve it.
  There were several other key improvements to the bill that were made 
during Senate consideration. The Senate's adoption of the amendment to 
set aside funds for a rapid response fund, administered by the 
Secretary of Labor, for workers dislocated by mass layoffs like plant 
closures, disasters, or other similar contingencies, was critically 
important. In addition to this provision, there should also be a 
mandate that States must serve dislocated workers; that is not in the 
current version of the bill, and should be included in conference. 
While some States, perhaps most, will likely serve these workers, there 
should be a guarantee in the bill that they be served.
  The bill provides for at least some assistance to migrant workers, 
though as under current law far less than is actually needed for that 
often desperately poor and mobile population. It provides key job 
protections for people in State employment service offices, and 
requires health and safety, antidiscrimination, and other protections 
for job training program participants.
  It mandates that States provide at least some level of summer youth 
job training assistance, though I remain very concerned that efforts to 
virtually gut the program's funding in the appropriations process may 
yet be successful, leaving hundreds of thousands of American youth 
without jobs during the summer in some of the most desperate inner-city 
neighborhoods of our Nation. But I have fought the first round of that 
fight on the rescissions bill, and the second round of that funding 
fight will come later this month.
  The bill imposes a cap on the amount of job training funds that can 
be used by States for economic development activities, to ensure 
against their being used as just an economic development honey-pot that 
does not serve the primary purposes for which these Federal funds are 
intended--job retraining and reemployment. It also includes key 
provisions, which I insisted upon when the Labor Committee considered 
the bill, which require that representatives of veterans be given a 
seat on work force development boards, and be consulted along with 
other community leaders as State job training plans are developed. I am 
pleased that my efforts to include these provisions in the bill were 
successful.
  As I have said, there are still serious problems with this bill. 
Overall, it makes substantial cuts in job training program funding, at 
precisely the time we should be maintaining adequate funding, investing 
in the character, skills and intellect of our people. While there may 
be some modest administrative savings from consolidating programs, I 
think that the huge savings estimated by some are wildly exaggerated, 
and are nowhere near the amounts cut in this bill. These reduced levels 
undermine our ability to provide American workers with the job 
training, education, and employment services they need to meet the 
needs of the next century.
  It also moves us a step away from a Federal system which targets 
resources to those who most need it--dislocated workers, economically 
disadvantaged adults, and others--a trend which could prove disastrous 
if cash-strapped States decide they cannot afford to serve these 
populations. I am worried about that, and believe we in Congress will 
have to carefully monitor the program's implementation to ensure that 
those who are most in need are served by the States.
  In addition, I think including education programs in a job training 
consolidation effort is a serious mistake. I worked hard at the 
beginning of this legislative process to keep programs like Perkins 
Vocational Education Program out of this bill. I believe that program 
in particular should maintain its focus as an education program instead 
of being swept into a job training bill.
  Overall, this bill eliminates six separate education programs and 
turns them into a block grant to the States. The block grant funds are 
to be used for vocational education and adult education, but the bill 
sets no minimum level of funding for either function. We have worked 
hard to improve the Perkins program and to use it to help integrate 
vocational and academic education. By repealing Perkins we risk 

[[Page S 14989]]
taking several steps backward in those efforts.
  This bill reduces funding for important education programs, including 
vocational education at the high school and college level. By reducing 
the Federal dollars allocated to education programs, and creating a 
block grant to serve both education and job training needs, we will 
likely divert much-needed funds from key education programs. I am 
hopeful that the education provisions of the bill will be overhauled in 
conference, and that some of the job training changes I have urged will 
also be addressed. I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am reluctantly voting for final 
passage of the Workforce Development Act, as amended by the Senate.
  I believe several of these amendments were key to making the bill 
much more favorable to California. I say I support the bill reluctantly 
because I believe the overall 15-percent reduction in job training 
funding is unwise for this country and the cut in funding for 
California is unfair for my State still struggling out of an economic 
recession, repeated, disproportionate base closings, and downsizings 
and dislocations in defense and other industries.
  Nevertheless, I will vote for the bill because I support the 
underlying program to consolidate our many separate job training 
programs, just as I supported the similar Democratic version in the 
last session of the Congress. As debate on this bill has shown, there 
is bipartisan interest in consolidating and reforming our job training 
programs to provide more flexibility to deal with our changing economy.
  But there were some programs eliminated in the committee bill that I 
was pleased have been restored by the full Senate.
  One of these was the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program. This 
program provides services to workers who lose their jobs as a result of 
competition from imported goods. It is a critical program to continue 
in the wake of the North American Free-Trade Agreement and the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. This program was restored to our job 
training program by the Moynihan amendment.
  I also supported the amendment offered by Senator Simon and Senator 
Specter, to keep the Job Corps Program a national program.
  The committee bill would have turned the program over to the States 
as part of the block grant for job training. It would have been a State 
option to continue Job Corps.
  Job Corps is one of the most successful programs to emerge from the 
efforts of Congress in the 1960's to attack the crisis in urban poverty 
and unemployment. Created in 1964, the Job Corps is the oldest, 
largest, and most comprehensive residential training and education 
program for young, unemployed, and undereducated youths ages 16-24.
  In 1982 Job Corps was incorporated into the Republican-sponsored Job 
Training and Partnership Act, authored by then-Senator Dan Quayle. It 
was a good idea in 1964, it was a good idea in 1982, and it is still a 
good idea in 1995.
  The Clinton administration has already addressed many of the problems 
often cited about the Job Corps. The Labor Department is imposing 
tougher performance standards, better screenings of participants and 
contractors, and other steps. Many of these reforms would be made law 
under the Specter-Simon Amendment.
  This amendment would also weed out some of the weaker performing 
centers over the next 5 years. It would not abruptly close 25 centers--
a quarter of the Job Corps, as the bill before us would do.
  None of the six centers in California would be closed directly under 
the committee bill. California centers have not had problems in 
behavior and management that were targeted by the Inspector General.
  However, two new centers for Long Beach and San Francisco were 
selected in 1994 to become operational in 1997. The Kassebaum bill 
would not authorize funds to operate these two new centers. This would 
be a particular blow for the Long Beach area, where the economy will 
suffer from the planned closing of the naval shipyard.
  Last program-year about 3,700 students participated in Job Corps at 
six centers throughout California and more than 80 percent were placed 
in jobs, joined the military, or pursued further education--a rate 
higher than the national average.
  Even if California agrees to continue to operate these centers under 
a State program--and that is not assured--the centers would still lose 
if the national program is eliminated. Job Corps trains students to get 
jobs in the national market, not just the region. Enrollees can choose 
centers across the country that best match their career plans. 
Nationwide Job Corps provides vocational training in more than 100 
trades, including construction, marketing, mechanics, and agriculture.
  Why replace one relatively small, cost-efficient bureaucracy to 
administer the program nationally with 50 separate bureaucracies in the 
States?
  There are nearly 730,000 youth living in poverty in California, the 
most of any State and about 200,000 higher than the next highest State, 
Texas. There are an estimated 151,000 youths in California in need of 
Job Corps. There are only 3 youths in California enrolled in Job Corps 
for every 100 who need to be enrolled. Nationally, there are 18 
enrolled for every 100 who need it.
  In California, from 1980 to 1990 the unemployment among black 
teenagers rose from 26 to 31 percent, for Hispanic youth 16 to 21 
percent and for white teenagers from 13 to 15 percent.
  Mr. President, I have been acutely aware of the impact of the Job 
Corps in California since I was elected to the Senate.
  The San Francisco Board of Supervisors in January 1993 passed a 
resolution on Job Corps which said in part:

       . . . The unwillingness of society to invest in 
     disadvantaged young people results in high unemployment 
     rates, discouragement, a disinvestment in society, and 
     frustration, and the costs of the unwillingness to invest 
     results in incalculable discouragement, suffering and 
     violence throughout, in particular, the African-American, 
     Hispanic, and other disadvantaged communities, as well as 
     throughout the entire City of San Francisco . . .

  The same can be said for Los Angeles, San Diego, San Bernardino, 
Sacramento and San Jose--the other cities in my State with centers 
which have provided more than $2 million in community-related services 
since 1989.
  This is not a perfect bill, but the bipartisan action on the Senate 
floor has made it a better bill. The final version will not be known 
until the Senate works out its differences with a similar bill in the 
House. I will be watching that process and will reserve my support 
until I can see the final version.
  One of the areas ripe for improvement will be to require the use of 
local workforce development boards. The Senate bill allows but does not 
mandate this key element in an effective delivery of job training 
services. These boards are essential to ensuring a meaningful 
leadership role for business and other private-sector representatives 
in the development and operation of employment and training programs. 
Their role would be similar to that of the private industry councils 
which serve now under the Job Training Partnership Act.
  I urge the Senate conferees to support local oversight of job 
training services by requiring the local work force development boards.


                      federal governance structure

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support the purposes of this 
legislation but continue to have some real concerns about certain 
provisions in the bill. I am particularly concerned about the Federal 
governance structure mandated in the bill, including: the ambiguous 
relationships between the two secretaries; the unprecedented use of a 
board structure to run an operating agency; the composition of the 
proposed Federal partnership; and the drastic Federal staffing cuts. 
Each of these issues gives me great pause. Taken together, I fear that 
effectiveness of job training consolidation may be jeopardized.
  Proponents offer two key reasons for such significant organizational 
change--the first is to save money, and the second is to provide better 
service. I do not believe that we will achieve either under the current 
proposal.
  My colleague from Ohio has been a leader in the area of Government 
reform, and I would be interested in his observations on this issue.
  Mr. GLENN. I share the concerns expressed by the senior Senator from 

[[Page S 14990]]
  Massachusetts. The legislation before us proposes a Federal governance 
structure that is intended to maximize coordination between the 
Departments of Labor and Education in the oversight of education and 
training block grant funds. And it is intended to increase the private 
sector's influence on education and training policy through a national 
board. Although these are desirable goals, they would be achieved 
through a governance structure, including proposed staff reductions, 
that would be virtually unworkable because it violates several basic 
principles of organizational reform.
  First, it violates the principle of establishing clear lines of 
authority, by creating a new ``Workforce Development Partnership'' 
within the Departments of Labor and Education under the direction of a 
national board. The Workforce Development Partnership, as it stands, is 
so unwieldy that I fear it may be unworkable, and the resulting 
disorder would undermine the promise of devolving greater 
responsibilities to the States. When you have accountability dispersed 
across two departments and one board, you really don't have 
accountability. Instead, you have confusion, ``passing the buck'' and a 
failure to solve problems.
  Second, it violates the principle of matching functions and 
structures. Experience shows that boards are good at some things: 
venting a broad array of opinion; debating issues; formulating policy; 
and ensuring consensus for that policy. Boards are not good, however, 
at carrying out administrative and management responsibilities, in part 
because of the need to make quick decisions. This bill assigns various 
administrative and management responsibilities to the national board 
that it is least capable of carrying out. The board's failure to 
effectively carry out such administrative and management 
responsibilities could undermine the ability of the States to implement 
a new work force development system.

  Third, it violates the principle that adequate resources should be 
provided to carry out a task, by specifying an arbitrary and 
significant staffing cut that is likely to undermine the critical 
Federal role in making the transition to the new work force development 
system. The drastic change required by this legislation raises enormous 
transition problems. Putting this into place will require considerable 
imagination, innovation, patience, and investment--of time and money.
  This is very hard to do if one partner is crippled by arbitrary 
staffing cuts at the beginning. This bill does not envision a handsoff 
role for the Federal Government. It instead mandates a very important 
Federal role--particularly in the transition--with respect to assisting 
the States in establishing new innovative, performance-based systems; 
charting new work force development plans; creating one-stop shopping 
for individuals and employers; measuring the success of the system and 
integrating it with other efforts. A proper Federal role is the key to 
promoting accountability and efficiency and to ensuring that confusion 
at the Federal level will not undermine the ambitious goals of the work 
force development system.
  I would like to illustrate the challenges of transition by focusing 
on grant closeout. Based on the Department of Labor's most recent major 
program closeout--the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act 
[CETA]--the closeout effort would likely take 2 to 3 years. Planning 
for the CETA closeout began in early 1982. Although CETA ceased 
operations on October 13, 1983, most related closeout activity was not 
completed until the end of 1985. Considerable resources were involved 
in bringing to an end the 10-year program in 470 localities. The 
Department's Office of Inspector General was also heavily involved, and 
in its 1984 semiannual report noted ``* * * it was necessary to devote 
tremendous audit resources to ensure the fiscal integrity of the 
closeout.''
  This is not to say that some staffing cuts in the future may not be 
appropriate. Before specifying such cuts, however, we need to take heed 
of a simple lesson from the business world: successful reforms are 
goal-oriented and carefully planned. The first step is to ask what you 
are trying to accomplish. Moving boxes around on an organizational 
chart looks impressive and satisfies our desire for action. But it does 
not make for good policy. It would not achieve the desired results and 
would certainly impose a period of transitional chaos.
  I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for raising these important 
issues.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I think the Senator from Ohio has made it clear that 
restructuring, while desirable, has to be thoughtfully done. 
Restructuring in business and government shows that structure is 
secondary to mission in successful reform efforts. Restructuring 
requires careful planning. This bill puts the cart before the horse. 
The Federal partnership would begin with a cut, without careful 
consideration of what needs to be achieved at the Federal level and the 
staffing level required to carry out such activities.
  I look forward to the conference where I hope we will have an 
opportunity to fix some of these problems.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Senator 
Abraham be added as a cosponsor to S. 143.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I believe there are no further 
amendments.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I know of none on our side.


                      federal governance structure

  Although I support this legislation and am voting for it, I continue 
to have concerns about various provisions in it. I am particularly 
concerned about the Federal governance structure mandated in the bill, 
including: The ambiguous relationship between the two Secretaries; the 
unprecedented use of a board structure to run an operating agency; the 
composition of the proposed Federal partnership; and the drastic 
Federal staffing cuts specified in the bill. Each of these issues is 
worthy of concern. Taken together, there is cause for this efforts to 
be dead on arrival, simply unable to operate.
  Proponents offer two key reasons for such significant organizational 
change--the first is to save money, and the second is to provide better 
service. I do not believe that we will achieve either under the current 
proposal.
  I would be interested in the observations on this issue of my 
distinguished colleague, Senator Glenn, who has been a leader in the 
area of governmental reform.
  Mr. GLENN. I share the concerns of the Senator from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Kennedy]. The legislation proposes a Federal governance structure 
that is intended to maximize coordination between the Department of 
Labor and Education in the oversight of education and training block 
grant funds, as well as increase the private sector's influence on 
education and training policy through a national board. Although these 
are desirable goals, they would be achieved through a governance 
structure, including proposed staff reductions, that would be virtually 
unworkable because it violates several basic principles of undertaking 
such organization reform.
  First, it would violate the principle of establishing clear lines of 
authority, by creating a new work force development partnership within 
the Departments of Labor and Education under the direction of a 
national board. The work force development partnership, as it stands, 
is so unwieldy as to be devolving greater responsibilities to the 
States. You would have confusion, passing the buck, and a failure to 
solve problems.

  Second, it would violate the principle of matching functions and 
structures. Experience shows that boards are good at some things: 
Venting a broad array of opinion; debating issues; making policy; and 
ensuring consensus for that policy. Boards are not good, however, at 
carrying out administrative and management responsibilities, in part 
because of the need to make quick decisions. This bill assigns various 
administrative and management responsibilities to the national board 
that it is least capable of carrying out. The Board's failure to carry 
out such administrative and management responsibilities effectively 
could undermine the ability of the States to implement a new work force 
development system.
  Third, it would violate the principle of providing resources adequate 
for carrying out the task, by specifying an arbitrary one-third 
staffing cut that is likely to undermine the critical Federal role in 
making the transition to 

[[Page S 14991]]
the new work force development system. The drastic change required by 
this legislation raises enormous transition problems. It requires 
considerable imagination, innovation, patience, and investment--of time 
and money--to put in place.
  This is very hard to do if one partner is crippled by arbitrary 
staffing cuts at the beginning. This bill does not envision a hands-off 
role for the Federal Government. It instead mandates a very important 
Federal role, particularly in the transition, with respect to assisting 
the States in establishing new, innovative, performance-based systems, 
charting new, work force development plans, creating one-stop shopping 
for individuals and employers, measuring the success of the system, and 
integrating it with other efforts. A proper Federal role is the key to 
promoting accountability and efficiency and to ensure that confusion at 
the Federal level will not undermine the ambitious goals of the work 
force development system.

  I would like to illustrate the challenges of transition by focusing 
on grant closeout. Based on the Department of Labor's most recent major 
program closeout--the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act [CETA], 
the closeout effort would be likely to take 2 to 3 years. Planning for 
the CETA closeout began in early 1982. Although CETA ceased operations 
on October 13, 1983, most related closeout activity was not completed 
until the end of 1985. Considerable resources were involved in bringing 
to an end the 10-year program in 470 localities. The Department's 
office of the inspector general also was heavily involved, and in its 
1994 semiannual report noted ``* * * it was necessary to devote 
tremendous audit resources to ensure the fiscal integrity of the 
closeout.''
  This is not to say that some Federal staffing cuts in the future may 
be not appropriate. Before specifying such cuts, however, we need to 
take heed of a simple lesson from the business world: Successful 
reforms are goal-oriented and carefully planned. The first step is to 
ask what you are trying to accomplish. Moving boxes around on an 
organizational chart looks impressive and satisfies our desire for 
action. But it does not make for good policy. It would not achieve the 
desired results and would certainly impose a period of transitional 
chaos.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I think the Senator from Ohio has made it clear that 
restructuring, while desirable, has to be thoughtfully done. 
Restructuring requires careful planning. This bill puts the cart before 
the horse. The Federal partnership would begin with a cut, without 
careful consideration of what needs to be achieved at the Federal level 
and the staffing level required to carry out such activities.
  I look forward to the conference and an opportunity to begin fixing 
these problems.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2885, as amended.
  So the amendment (No. 2885), as amended, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further amendments to be 
proposed, the question is on the engrossment and third reading of the 
bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was 
read the third time.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
committee be immediately discharged from further consideration of H.R. 
1617, the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, that all after 
the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 143, as amended, be 
inserted in lieu thereof; further, that H.R. 1617 then be read for a 
third time and the Senate immediately proceed to vote on passage of the 
bill.
  I further ask consent that following passage of H.R. 1617, the Senate 
insist on its amendment and request a conference with the House, and 
the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, 
and S. 143 be placed back on the calendar.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1617) to consolidate and reform work force 
     development and literacy programs and for other purposes.

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on final 
passage.
  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 the passage of H.R. 1617, 
as amended.
  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 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced, yeas 95, nays 2, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 487 Leg.]

                                YEAS--95

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

                                NAYS--2

     Feinstein
     Simon
       

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Cohen
     Moynihan
       
  So, the bill (H.R. 1617), as amended, was passed.
  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.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the title to 
the desk and ask unanimous consent that it be considered and agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The title was amended so as to read:

       A bill to consolidate Federal employment training, 
     vocational education, and adult education programs and create 
     integrated statewide workforce development systems, and for 
     other purposes.

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, in approving the Workforce Development 
Act, I believe the Senate has taken a great step forward in reforming 
Federal work force development efforts. It truly is a major and 
innovative approach that I think will serve both our education and job 
training arenas with great success.
  Arriving at this point has been a long and difficult endeavor. Wiping 
the slate clean, so to speak, has meant convincing those who have 
invested time in existing programs that there is a better way to 
accomplish their goals. Taking the next step in developing that better 
way has proven to be just as challenging.
  Mr. President, I am convinced that the time and effort put into this 
legislation has been worth it. We now have a blueprint for a system in 
which the needs of all who require a job, job training and job 
training-related education can be addressed. It is a system where the 
States will have flexibility to fit their needs while being accountable 
to the public for the use of Federal funds. It is a system which 
creates incentives for the involvement of a true partnership among job 
training advocates, educators, the business community, and State 
governments.
  It has taken a couple of years, if not more, to put this proposal 
together and many hearings and consultations and many individuals have 
made major contributions to this effort. It is not possible to name 
them all. However, I do want to acknowledge several of them. 

[[Page S 14992]]

  In particular, I express my appreciation to the members of my staff 
who have worked on this legislation: Ted Verheggen, Carla Widener, 
Wendy Cramer, Bob Stokes, and Susan Hattan. Other staff of committee 
members on both sides of the aisle have also made significant 
contributions to this legislation. From the Republican staff, I would 
include Sherry Kaiman and Reg Jones with Senator Jeffords, Pat 
Morrissey and Carol Fox with Senator Frist, Dwayne Sattler with Senator 
DeWine, Rick Murphy with Senator Gregg, Don Trigg with Senator 
Ashcroft, and Gregg Willhauck with Senator Abraham.
  On the Democratic side of the aisle, I would like to express 
appreciation particularly to Ellen Guiney, Libby Street, Sarah Fox, and 
Omer Waddles with Senator Kennedy; David Evans and Kevin Wilson with 
Senator Pell; Suzanne Day with Senator Dodd; Charlie Barrone with 
Senator Simon; Bobby Silverstein and Bev Schroeder with Senator Harkin. 
I also want to recognize the efforts of Liz Aldridge and Mark Sigurski, 
who produced the legislative language with many of the incarnations of 
this legislation. In some ways this perhaps is the most trying and 
difficult part of the bill.
  A special thanks also goes to Rick Appling and Ann Lordaman, of the 
Congressional Research Service. The staff of the General Accounting 
Office, the leadership of the Republican Governors Workforce 
Development Task Force, and many individuals in the business and 
education communities also lent valuable support to this effort.
  In closing, Mr. President, I would like to say a special word about 
Steve Spinner. Senator Kennedy gave an eloquent tribute to Steve 
Spinner in his opening remarks as we started the debate on the 
Workforce Development Act. As a member of Senator Kennedy's staff, he 
worked very closely with me and my staff in developing the work force 
training provisions of this bill. He cared very deeply about bringing 
about reform in this area and offered invaluable advice, assistance and 
suggestions based on his experience in the field. His dedication and 
professionalism earned him great respect on both sides of the aisle. 
Unfortunately, Steve died of cancer a few weeks ago. We deeply regret 
his loss and regret he was unable to see through an effort to which he 
had devoted so much time and talent.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the good chairman of our committee was 
speaking with her heart and soul about the extraordinary work of Steve 
Spinner who spent an enormous amount of time and energy in the 
developing and shaping of this legislation. He died just 2 weeks ago, 
at a young age, but made a remarkable contribution, which, through this 
legislation, other good works will live on for a very considerable 
period of time. And because of his works, young and old will have a 
better opportunity to have a more hopeful life, a better chance to 
provide for their families.
  We are, I think, all extremely fortunate to have the help and 
assistance of extraordinary, dedicated men and women who help us with 
our legislative duties, but more than that are highly motivated and 
incredibly gifted and talented in their profession and whose work is 
absolutely essential and invaluable in shaping legislation. Steve 
Spinner falls in that category, as well as so many others that Senator 
Kassebaum mentioned and that I will include.
  But Steve Spinner was a rare, uncommon individual. And I think those 
of us who serve on that committee are mindful at this moment with the 
successful passage of the legislation, not just by the handful of votes 
which would have been sufficient to see its completion, but the 
extraordinary efforts to try to encompass the breadth of this body in 
terms of focusing and giving attention to the needs of those that will 
benefit from this legislation was really extraordinary. And I think to 
a great degree the fact that we have had such overwhelming support for 
this legislation was a real tribute to Steve and his efforts and 
energies over a long period of time. Others were certainly 
indispensable as that path went along, but I think Steve, all of us 
recognized, was someone who was very, very gifted.
  I also would mention Steve's wife, Claire and daughter Elisa at this 
moment as well. Elisa is 4 years old, and Claire was a very lovely and 
wonderful, devoted companion.
  Mr. President, the legislation which we voted on this afternoon is a 
culmination of a long, bipartisan effort to reexamine and refocus the 
Federal role in the education and training of America's workers. And 
this complex effort involves many separate decisions and judgments 
about the services that are most effective, the appropriate roles of 
the Federal, State, and local governments in job training and how best 
to ensure that available resources are targeted to those who need them 
the most.
  Much of our debate over the last 2 days has been focused on those 
questions, and appropriately so. But as we face the vote on the final 
passage of the legislation, it was important to consider how much is at 
stake in this bill and how important this issue is to our country and 
to its future.
  The challenges of creating a world-class work force are central to 
America's ability to compete successfully in the global economy. It is 
also central to our standard of living and the quality of life for all 
of our people. The economic indicators are sending a message that none 
of us can ignore. Corporate profits are up, productivity is increasing, 
but the wages of most Americans are not.
  Since 1979, the national household income has increased, but almost 
all of that increase has gone to families in the top 20 percent. And 60 
percent of American households have actually seen their family incomes 
in real dollars decrease. The gap in income between the most affluent 
and least affluent members of our society is greater today than at any 
time since records began to be kept after World War II. It far exceeds 
the gap in any other industrial nation in the world. And the gap is 
widening, not decreasing.
  Many different factors have contributed to this problem, but one 
element in the picture stands out. Men and women who lack education and 
job skills are having the hardest time of all. Three-quarters of 
American workers are without 4-year college degrees. They have suffered 
the steepest drop in wages and benefits. At the start of the 1980's, a 
male college graduate typically earned 49 percent more than a male high 
school graduate. Today the differential is 85 percent. The evidence is 
overwhelming that one realistic way toward reversing that dangerous 
trend is to improve the education and training available to workers.
  For every year of additional education or job training after high 
school, a worker's income increases by 6 to 12 percent. That is why the 
legislation we are considering today is so important. The Federal 
Government has had a long history of involvement in job training, from 
the manpower programs in the 1960's to CETA in the 1970's to the Job 
Training Partnership Act of the 1980's, and many other training 
programs administered by the Department of Labor or the Department of 
Education.
  The record of success is clearly mixed. And what we are attempting to 
do at the Federal level today is a clear departure from what we have 
done in the past and taking us into new territory. Our past job 
training policy was based on the assumption that the vast majority of 
workers would acquire basic skills in schools and that these skills 
would enable young men and women to attain good jobs with decent wages 
and benefits and work productively in those jobs for the rest of their 
lives.
  On this basis, Federal training programs focused on particular groups 
facing special barriers--the disadvantaged, the disabled, and in more 
recent years the dislocated worker. There was a clear recognition that 
members of these groups needed special assistance. But at the same 
time, it was assumed most workers were already in the mainstream and 
could succeed effectively on their own.
  We have had a rude awakening. In the highly competitive global 
economy that has emerged in recent years, U.S. workers have been losing 
ground. And in the painful process of analyzing that decline, we have 
come to realize that on the issue of job training we have not been 
doing the job.
  It is not just the disadvantaged, disabled, and dislocated who suffer 
from 

[[Page S 14993]]
inadequate education and training; it is a work-force-wide problem. 
Compared to other nations, we have clearly been underinvesting in the 
education and training of the vast majority of our workers. And 
American working families are paying a heavy price for that neglect.
  Now for the first time we are looking at Federal training programs as 
part of a competitiveness strategy, central to the Nation's overall 
economic future. And that, in turn, has required us to broaden our 
outlook, to start seeing these issues in terms of the need for the kind 
of broader bipartisan reform we are recommending today.
  In a sense, this bipartisan movement for reform began with Senator 
Dan Quayle's Job Training Partnership Act in 1982 and its effort to 
involve the private sector more closely in such reform.
  The second major milestone on the road to reform was the 1990 reform 
report of America's Choice Commission, cochaired by two distinguished 
former Secretaries of Labor, Bill Brock and Ray Marshall, and their 
clear warning that unless we changed our ways, we were on the race to 
the bottom in the global economy.
  The next major landmark was the 1992 report by the congressional 
General Accounting Office that so effectively blew the whistle on the 
current confusing array of Federal programs, and the past two 
Congresses picked up the challenge. We held bipartisan hearings on all 
of these challenges, enacted initial important reforms, such as the 
school-to-work legislation signed by President Clinton. And throughout 
this process in recent years, Senator Kassebaum and I have worked 
closely together to agree on the broad direction of reform. This 
legislation is the result of both of our efforts, and I commend her for 
her leadership, for without her leadership, we would not be where we 
are today.
  We have not always agreed on all of the details, but we have 
certainly agreed on the major directions of the reforms we need. But we 
both are well aware that there are no simple answers and no silver 
bullets. We have approached this challenge with a maximum of 
bipartisanship and minimum of ideology.
  This legislation is, obviously, not a final answer to the serious 
challenges that we face, but is a far better answer than we have had so 
far. I am grateful that the Senate has passed it by an overwhelming 
majority.
  Mr. President, I want to join in mentioning very briefly our 
colleagues who have participated in this so actively. I mentioned the 
significant and outstanding leadership of the chairperson of our 
committee, Senator Kassebaum, whose commitment in this area has been 
really extraordinary. When we look over the broad range of debates and 
discussions that we have had over the period of this Congress, I think 
this really stands out as an extraordinary effort to try and bring 
together the diverse viewpoints and ideas and do it in a way which 
really represents the best in legislative effort in drawing the strong 
bipartisan support, and support from all the different elements of this 
body:
  Senator Jeffords, with his strong commitment in education and the 
Adult Education Program, with our colleague Senator Pell, who has done 
so much in chairing and being the ranking minority member of the 
education committee for such a long period of time;
  For Senators Specter and Simon, who were so committed on the issues 
of the Job Corps and who spent a great deal of time on that issue;
  To my friend and colleague, Senator Dodd on the dislocated workers 
and the national priorities which will extend not only to the 
industrial areas but also will include the national priorities for 
those all over this Nation. It is an important program and we are 
grateful for his leadership;
  Senator Breaux and Senator Daschle for the work that they did in 
devising a completely different concept in permitting the maximum 
flexibility for individuals to make choices and selections out of the 
wide, diverse numbers of training programs so that they would be able 
to maximize their own skills and talents and innovative programs which 
they have pursued for some period of time and which has been included 
in this legislation;
  Senator Moynihan on the trade adjustment.
  Senator Mikulski, who was so much involved in the senior community 
employment issue and which was not a part of this program, but she was 
so much involved in its continued success.
  Senator Kassebaum has mentioned many of those who have been so 
involved. I want to particularly recognize Omer Waddles, who has done 
such extraordinary work, particularly in following up on the superb 
work of Steve Spinner, Ellen Guiney, Libby Street, Ross Eisenbrey, Greg 
Young, Sarah Fox, and Nick Littlefield, our general counsel, who is 
tireless in all of his endeavors and work on this legislation; Dave 
Evans, Mort Zuckerman for Senator Simon; Suzanne Day, Bev Schroeder, 
Senator Harkin; Bobby Silverstein, again, with Senator Harkin.
  Even though Senator Kassebaum has mentioned some of those who have 
served with her on the Republican side, we often find that their 
talents are invaluable to all of us on this issue.
  There are many others: Susan Hattan, Ted Verheggen, Carla Widener, 
and Wendy Cramer. To all of those and others, I am enormously grateful 
for their support.
  I want to thank the majority leader for scheduling this legislation 
and the minority leader as well for giving it a priority for us as 
well.
  I am glad we were able to move this process forward. We look forward 
to the conference with the House Members, and we hope that the spirit 
of comity and cooperation and bipartisanship, which has been reflected 
in this debate during the past few days, will be evident in the 
conference and when the conference report returns.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues Senator 
Kassebaum and Senator Kennedy. This was a priority matter, and it was 
completed on schedule, on time. I thank both my colleagues for that.

                          ____________________