[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.

                          ____________________