[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 97 (Thursday, June 27, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7090-S7093]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT ACT DOESN'T DESERVE TO DIE
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, when I assumed the chairmanship of the
Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee last year, one of my top
priorities was to bring to fruition a comprehensive reform of our many
job training programs.
My colleague in that effort on the other side of the aisle is the
Senator from Nebraska, Senator Kerrey, who has been a stalwart
supporter of this effort. We both felt strongly there was much that
could be done that would significantly improve and enhance Federal job
training programs.
Over the past several years, the General Accounting Office, the
inspector general, the Department of Labor, and others, have churned
out report after report documenting both the proliferation of Federal
job training efforts and the inability of these programs to show
results.
The roughly $5 billion which the Federal Government invests in these
programs is small potatoes in our annual trillion-dollar-plus budget.
The work of these programs are not front-page news, and the issues they
raise are probably regarded as boring and tedious.
Mr. President, nevertheless, the Workforce Development Act, which was
approved by a vote of 95 to 2, offered an ideal opportunity to find
ways to make Government work better.
The legislation was designed to achieve four basic objectives:
One, to consolidate overlapping and narrowly focused Federal
categorical programs to allow for the development of statewide systems
to address the needs of all individuals.
Two, to provide the States with sufficient flexibility to focus
trading resources on their areas of greatest need, while preserving the
core activities supported by the Federal Government in the past.
Three, to develop true partnerships among the educators who provide
the academic foundation, the trainers who provide the technical
expertise, and the business people who create the jobs for which
individuals are being trained.
Four, to shift the focus of accountability from one which looks only
at the front end--``Are Federal regulations being followed to the
letter?''--to one which looks at the results--``Are training program
participants getting jobs?''
Throughout the process in committee, on the floor, and in conference,
various accommodations were made in the inevitable process of resolving
competing concerns. Some programs which I had believed were appropriate
for consolidation, for example, were dropped out of the bill. Many of
the changes made to the bill I originally introduced were not things
which I would have preferred.
Nevertheless, these revisions were made at the margin. As we near the
conclusion of the conference, which has been ongoing since October, the
core objectives of the bill remain intact and remain worthy of the
support they received in overwhelming votes in both the House and
Senate.
Specifically, the bill consolidates 80 separate programs into a work
force and career development block grant to the States. Consolidating
these programs will permit the States to develop cohesive systems, with
employment and training activities being delivered on a one-stop basis.
Second, the bill assures a foundation of support for the four basic
activity that have traditionally received Federal support: employment
and training; vocational education; adult education; and services for
at-risk youth. At the same time, the bill permits each State to
supplement the activities which it needs most, by reserving 25 percent
of the funds in a flex account to be distributed among the four core
activities in the way chosen by the State.
Third, it creates real incentives for cooperation and coordination
among educators, trainers, and the business community by providing a
collaborative process both for the development of a single State plan
and for decisionmaking regarding the allocation of flex funds.
Finally, the bill gets rid of thousands of pages of statutory and
regulatory prescriptions and allows State and local officials to
concentrate on results. States must establish benchmarks--a process
which entails setting specific goals their programs are supposed to
achieve. Incentives and sanctions will be based on performance relative
to the benchmarks.
Unfortunately, the opportunity to achieve these goals is on the verge
of slipping from our grasp. If this bill dies, it will not do so
because it is bad policy. Rather, it will have fallen victim to two
disparate but powerful political agendas.
On the one hand, many Democrats see the demise of this bill as an
opportunity not only to preserve the status quo and the individual
interests it protects, but also to use it as fodder in the sound bites
leading to the November elections.
Despite recent allegations to the contrary, this legislation has not
been an
[[Page S7091]]
all-Republican effort. Both the House and Senate have made every effort
to obtain bipartisan support, and large bipartisan majorities in both
bodies approved the legislation. No one could be a stronger defender of
the need of this type of innovative approach to Government than Senator
Kerrey of Nebraska.
I would like to suggest, however, that the conference proposal
reflects a number of concessions that were made in an attempt to
address concerns raised by the administration--and I believe that we
have done so, not all of them exactly as the administration would have
wished but now the administration has withdrawn support--including the
establishment of mandatory career grant programs for dislocated workers
in every State; a 50-percent reduction in the size of the flex account;
the separation of Wagner-Peyser funds from the block grant; the
abandonment of the Federal partnership in favor of enhancing the
authorities of the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education;
and the establishment of mandatory local boards.
We are now in the position of being told that not only are these
concessions which were made insufficient, but also that provisions
which were never a part of either bill, such as the $1.3 billion
earmark for dislocated workers, are the price of the administration's
support.
At the opposite end of the spectrum are those who have seized the
bill as a platform to debate issues which have nothing to do with the
purpose or provisions of this legislation. For example, one of the
major specific criticisms leveled by family groups is that the
legislation does not abolish the Department of Education. Our efforts
to assure that individuals get the information and training they need
to make their own choices and to pursue their own dreams have been
turned on their head and have been mischaracterized as a Federal plot
to dictate career and education choices.
Each of these groups has set a list of their complaints about the
bill.
I ask unanimous consent that an analysis of these complaints, along
with a brief summary of the conference proposal, appear in the Record
following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, to conclude, the alliance of those who
want continued preeminence of Federal bureaucracies with those who will
settle for nothing less than their total dismantlement threaten to turn
a solid piece of legislation into nothing more than a fundraising tool.
Good Government is pretty boring stuff compared to the adrenalin
charge that can be produced by allegations that Republicans are
insensitive to the needs of American workers, or that the Federal
Government is engaged in a conspiracy to undermine the rights and
freedoms of individuals. Both sides would settle for the status quo.
Mr. President, I think it is very sad to see us at a point when we
should be able to survive these potent political forces and being
willing to take some small steps forward to address the very thing that
most Americans would like to see, and that is, the control of the
Federal Government dictating every aspect of initiatives that could
bear real fruition at the State and local level.
I would like to yield a minute or whatever time I have left, if I
may, to Senator Kerrey of Nebraska to make a brief comment.
Exhibit 1
Analysis of Concerns Expressed by President Clinton in Letter to
Conferees
Authorization Level. The President believes the
authorization level for the bill should be set at $5.7
billion, which represents his fiscal year 1997 budget request
for the programs included in the block grant.
The conference proposal is to authorize ``such sums,''
which implies no limit on future appropriations and which is
a practice used many times in the past in launching new
initiatives.
Disclocated Workers. Administration officials have
requested that a minimum of $1.3 billion be earmarked for
dislocated workers.
The conference proposal does not include such an earmark,
as such a proposal was never part of either the House or the
Senate bill. The purpose of this legislation is to get away
from the ``categorization'' of individuals to allow the
development of a system which works for all in need of its
services. States with large dislocated worker populations can
allocate flex account funds to serve them, and dislocated
workers are specifically identified as a group for which
benchmarks must be developed.
Vouchers. The President believes that all services (with a
few limited exceptions) to dislocated workers should be
delivered through vouchers or ``skill grants.''
The conference agreement requires every state to establish
a pilot program to serve dislocated workers with ``career
grants.'' The pilot must be of sufficient size, scope, and
quality to demonstrate the effectiveness of career grants.
States are specifically authorized to deliver all training
services through career grants, should they choose to do so.
The bill approved by the Senate did not require that
vouchers be used under any circumstances--due to concerns
that mandating vouchers would impose substantial
administrative burdens on states and reduce state flexibility
in determining the most effective means of service delivery.
In addition, past experience with federal student loan
programs has underscored both the importance and the
difficulty of putting into place appropriate ``gate-keeping''
procedures to assure that participants are not ripped off by
training providers.
Given the seriousness of these concerns, I believe we have
met the President more than half way. If vouchers work as
well as he believes, they will undoubtedly be expanded. If
they present the problems I anticipate, the pilot projects
can offer guidance regarding whether or not they can be
corrected.
School-to-Work. The Administration wants the School-to-Work
Opportunities Act to be authorized and funded as a separate
program outside the block grant.
The conference agreement would repeal this Act on July 1,
1998, the same date that approximately 80 other federal
programs will be repealed. After that time, states would be
able to use block grant funds to continue their school-to-
work programs.
Any state wishing to participate in the federal school-to-
work program will have the opportunity to sign up prior to
this repeal date. By all accounts, the program is popular
with governors and other officials--who would presumably
exercise their discretion to continue it with block grant
funds. It makes no sense, however, to maintain a separate
school-to-work program operating on a parallel track with the
block grant.
Accountability. The Administration indicates that the bill
lacks ``accountability.''
Accountability for results--which is virtually non-existent
in current programs--is a major focus of this reform
legislation. It appears that the Administration's view of
``accountability'' is maintaining maximum federal control
over job training programs.
The conference agreement addresses strong concerns voiced
earlier by the Administration about provisions of the Senate
bill which combined offices within the Department of Labor
and the Department of Education into a Federal Partnership to
administer the block grant. I had felt it was important to
have at the federal level the same coordination and
cooperation we were seeking at the state level, but I
abandoned that approach in the face of the Administration's
objections. These new Administration concerns seem to
undercut the objective of the legislation to enhance state
responsibility and flexibility. It makes little sense to me
to develop a bill which repeals current restrictions, only to
establish a situation where federal Cabinet Secretaries are
in the position of re-creating them through regulation
Local Elected Officials. The Administration would like the
local workforce development boards to be structured more like
the existing Private Industry Councils [PICS]--particularly
with respect to the role of local elected officials.
The conference proposal gives substantial responsibility to
local elected officials, but it admittedly and intentionally
does not re-create PICs. Local elected officials are part of
the collaborative process at the state level, making a
variety of key decisions regarding the statewide system. In
addition, at the local level, they appoint members of the
local board, assist in developing the local plan, and provide
continuous input to the board in carrying out its functions.
Again, earlier Administration concerns were addressed when
Senate conferees agreed to require the establishment of local
boards--something which was not required in our original
bill.
Control of Education. The Administration believes that
education programs should remain under the jurisdiction of
the state and local education entities which currently
oversee them.
This has always been the objective of the Senate bill and
is included in the conference proposal.
____
Analysis of Concerns Expressed in ``Capitol Hill Eagle Alert'' Dated
May 3, 1996
Schools as ``Workforce Development'' Centers. The alert
indicates that schools will ``train'' students, not
``educate'' them.
A solid academic foundation is critical for every student.
Nothing in the Workforce Development Act changes the
fundamental mission of our schools to ``educate'' students.
Workforce Development Boards. The alert indicates that
workforce development boards will decide what jobs are needed
and what youth can be trained for them.
That is an inaccurate description of the function of
workforce development boards.
[[Page S7092]]
The primary function of workforce development boards is to
bring together business and community leaders who can
accurately identify the economic development and workforce
training needs in a local community, in order to maximize the
number of jobs available for individuals seeking work in the
community. Such information will be useful in designing
training programs that meet the needs of the unemployed and
businesses seeking qualified employees. Local workforce
development boards do not replace, nor take authority away
from, local school boards and parent organizations whose
focus is on secondary school students and programs.
Labor Market Information System. The alert contends that a
Labor Market Information System ``would compile data about
every child--academic, medical, personal, family,
attitudinal, and behavioral--into a computer data base, then
give access to all future employers and the government.''
There is no truth to this statement. Labor market
information serves a critical purpose in providing accurate
information about national unemployment rates and workforce
trends (such as whether more jobs are available in
manufacturing, retail, or service industries.) At the state
and local level, labor market information includes listings
of job openings supplied voluntarily by employers, which
individuals seeking employment can review through public
employment service offices. Nothing in the Workforce
Development Act authorizes the collection of personal
information on individuals (including youth) for use by
employers or the government.
Department of Labor Authority over Education. The alert
contends that the legislation gives Labor Secretary Reich
control over local schools.
Elementary and secondary education is the responsibility of
state and local officials and remains so under this bill.
Neither Secretary Reich nor any other federal official is
assigned ``control'' over local schools.
State Legislatures and School Boards. The alert contends
that responsibility for local schools is taken from State
legislatures and local school boards and transferred to the
Governor and local workforce development boards.
This statement is not accurate. The conference proposal
makes no changes in education governance at the state and
local levels. From the beginning, the Senate bill has assured
that responsibility for schools stayed in the hands of those
currently designated under State law.
Department of Education. The alert criticizes the bill
because it does not abolish the Department of Education.
That is accurate; it doesn't. Bills written with the
express purpose of abolishing the Department have been
introduced in Congress. The purpose of the Workforce
Development Act is to reform federal job training programs
and to enhance the responsibility and flexibility of state
and local officials.
____
Summary of Workforce and Career Development Act
The Workforce and Career Development Act consolidates
approximately 80 job training and training-related programs
into a single grant to the States. The purposes of the Act
are to:
Provide greater flexibility to the States in designing
workforce systems which fit their specific needs;
Eliminate duplication of effort and reduce the regulatory
burden created by numerous categorical federal programs;
Encourage greater coordination of job training and
training-related education programs;
Improve the effectiveness of federal workforce development
efforts by focusing on program results.
title i: statewide workforce and career development systems
State Systems.--Statewide workforce development systems are
established through a single allotment of funds to each
State. Minimum percentages of funds will be allocated to
specific activities, as follows: 34 percent--Employment and
Training; 24 percent--Vocational Education; 16 percent--At-
Risk Youth; 6 percent--Adult Education and Literacy.
The remaining 20 percent of the funds may be distributed
among any of these four activities, as the State may decide.
Decisions regarding the allocation of funds from this ``flex
account'' is made through a collaborative process involving,
among others, the Governor, the eligible agencies for
vocational and adult education, local elected officials, and
the private sector. The purpose of the flex account is to
permit each State to allocate resources to the activities
most needed in that State.
State Plans.--An overall strategic plan for the State is
also developed through the collaborative process. The plan
describes:
State goals and benchmarks for the system, including how
the State will use its funds to meet those goals and
benchmarks;
How the State will establish systems for one-stop career
centers to effectively and efficiently deliver training
services to all individuals; and
How the vocational, adult education and literacy, and at-
risk youth needs of the State will be met.
State Governance.--The Governor administers and exercises
authority over the employment and training and at-risk youth
activities in the State. The agencies eligible for vocational
education and adult education administer and exercise
authority over vocational education activities and adult
education activities, respectively, in accordance with State
law.
Local Workforce Development Bonds.--Each State must
establish local workforce development boards which, at a
minimum, include a majority of business representatives, and
representatives of education and workers. The boards: (1)
develop a local plan outlining the workforce development
activities to be carried out in the local area: (2) designate
or certify one-stop career center providers (consistent with
criteria in the state plan); (3) conduct oversight of local
programs; and (4) award competitive grants to eligible at-
risk youth providers. The Governor certifies the boards
annually, based in part on how well the local programs it
oversees are meeting expected levels of performance.
Accountability.--Each State must, at a minimum, establish
specific benchmarks designed to meet the goals of providing
meaningful employment and improving academic, occupational,
and literacy skills. These benchmarks will be used to measure
progress toward goals established for populations including,
at a minimum: (1) low-income individuals; (2) disclosed
workers; (3) at-risk youth; (4) individuals with
disabilities; (5) veterans; and (6) individuals with limited
literacy skills.
The Secretaries of Labor and Education may award incentive
grants or impose sanctions, depending upon the success or
failure of the State toward meeting such goals and
benchmarks.
Transition.--States may obtain waivers in order to begin
establishing their statewide systems prior to the
implementation of the block grant on July 1, 1998. In
addition, States may request technical assistance from the
Secretaries in developing their state plans.
Federal Administration.--The Secretary of Labor and the
Secretary of Education will enter into an interagency
agreement on how the new system will be administered at the
Federal level.
National Programs.--National activities include: national
assessments of statewide systems; the continuation of the
Bureau of Labor Statistics labor market information programs;
the establishment of a national center for research in
education and workforce development; national emergency
grants for dislocated workers; and programs for Native
Americans, migrant and seasonal farm workers, and the
outlying areas.
Authorization Levels.--``Such sums'' for fiscal yeas 1998
through 2002.
title ii: workforce development-related activities
Employment Service.--The Wagner-Peyser Act is amended to
provide that the activities carried out by the Employment
Service will be linked to the one-stop career center system
established in each State;
Vocational Rehabilitation.--Title 1 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 is amended to link vocational rehabilitation
services with the statewide systems including, to the extent
feasible, the State goals and benchmarks.
Job Corps.--Job Corps remains a separate, federal
residential program for at-risk youth. A National Job Corps
Review Panel will conduct a review of the Job Corps program
and make recommendations on improvements, including the
closure of 5 Job Corps centers by September 30, 1997, and an
additional 5 centers by September 30, 2000.
TITLE III: MUSEUMS AND LIBRARIES
The bill provides for the establishment of an Institute of
Museums and Library Services, consolidating the functions of
the Institute of Museum Services, the Library Services and
Construction Act, Title II of the Higher Education Act, and
Part F of the Technology for Education Act.
TITLE IV: HIGHER EDUCATION
Connie Lee.--The bill provides for the privatization of the
College Construction Loan Insurance Association (Connie Lee).
Sallie Mae.--The bill provides for the privatization of the
Student Loan Marketing Association (Sallie Mae).
Higher Education Repeals.--The bill repeals approximately
45 programs authorized under the Higher Education Act which
did not receive appropriations in fiscal year 1996.
TITLE V: GENERAL PROVISIONS
Repeals.
The following programs will sunset immediately upon
enactment:
State Legalization Impact Assistance Grant (SLIAG)
Displaced Homemakers Self-Sufficiency Assistance Act
Title II of Public Law 95-250
Appalachian Vocational and Other Education Facilities &
Operations
Job Training for the Homeless Demonstration Project
The following programs will sunset on July 1, 1998, the
date by which each State must implement its statewide system:
Job Training Partnership Act
Carl Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education
Act
Adult Education Act
School Dropout Assistance Act
Adult Education for the Homeless
Library Services and Construction Act
School-to-Work Opportunities Act
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kansas [Mrs.
Kassebaum]. As a consequence of making the
[[Page S7093]]
judgment that this bill is too important to let die because perhaps 10,
20, or 30 million American families can benefit from the Workforce
Development Act, and will benefit.
There are not very many pieces of legislation quite like this one
where I am 100 percent certain that 2, 3, or 4 years from now someone
will come up on the street and say, ``My family has $6,000 more income
as a consequence of this piece of legislation. It has benefited me in
that fashion.''
I am quite convinced this is one of the most important pieces of
legislation that this Congress has taken up. I am very, very grateful
to the Senator from Kansas for saying, get all parties back together,
Republicans and Democrats. There is not a lot of big money trying to
push this thing one way or the other. That sometimes makes things more
difficult. But on behalf of 20 or 30 million American families out
there who could be tremendously benefited if we change this law in this
fashion, I hope the advice of the distinguished Senator from Kansas is
taken and that we are able to produce a piece of legislation that will
be supported and get this law changed.
____________________