[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 31 (Thursday, March 19, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2290-S2293]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         FAMILY GROUP CONCERNS

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to begin today a discussion 
on a piece of legislation that I have been working on, and others have 
been working on, for the past 7 months. I believe this legislation is 
vitally important to the economic well-being of our country--and I hope 
the full Senate will have an opportunity to debate this bill in the 
very near future.
  The legislation that I am referring to is S. 1186, the Workforce 
Investment Partnership Act.
  I have come to the floor on a number of occasions in the past to 
stress the immediate need to reform the Federal job training system. 
This need increases each day the Congress does not act.
  During the numerous oversight hearings held in the Senate over the 
last 3 years, we have heard that we face in this country a fragmented 
and duplicative maze of narrowly focused job training and job-training-
related programs, programs administered by numerous Federal agencies 
that lack coordination, lack a coherent strategy to provide training 
assistance, and lack the confidence of the two key consumers who 
utilize these services; namely, those seeking the training and those 
businesses seeking to hire them.
  Throughout the hearing process, I have heard that reform is needed 
because the economic future of our country depends on a well-trained 
work force. Employers at every level are finding it increasingly 
difficult to locate and attract qualified employees for high-skilled, 
high-paying jobs, as well as qualified employees for entry-level 
positions.
  Let me just give, Mr. President, one example. Right outside the 
Capital, right outside Washington, DC, in Northern Virginia, there are 
19,000 high-tech, high-paying jobs that remain unfilled because 
individuals lack the skills to fill them. However, even with the 
shortage of skilled workers in Northern Virginia, you will still hear 
radio ads during morning drive time urging people to move to North 
Carolina to fill high-tech jobs down there.
  Ohio faces a similar problem. Manpower, Incorporated recently 
released a poll which indicated that the Dayton area had a bright 
future in terms of job growth. Forty-two percent of area companies plan 
on hiring more manufacturing workers. However, while employers plan to 
hire, the availability of skilled workers to fill those jobs remains 
low. A Cleveland Growth Association survey recently showed that 
employers are becoming increasingly

[[Page S2291]]

concerned about the quality and availability of skilled labor which may 
impede their future growth plans.
  According to the Manufacturers Alliance's Economic Report published 
in January, the mismatch between available jobs and available skilled 
workers is growing. While wages have increased for those who have the 
skills in demand, many jobs still go unfilled, and the median duration 
of unemployment for those who lack the skills remains at recession 
levels.

  Nationwide, the number of unfilled high-tech jobs is estimated to be 
346,000 people. The increasing labor shortage threatens our Nation's 
economic growth and our productivity. This, in turn, threatens one of 
our greatest domestic achievements--the historic welfare reform.
  States and counties under this bill have been given the 
responsibility of moving people from welfare to work, and this is not 
an easy task. Many individuals trying to make the transition to work 
lack the basic skills needed to obtain the available jobs even at the 
entry level.
  Mr. President, the Senate needs to act. We need to develop a job 
training system that is flexible, a system that provides individuals 
who are voluntarily seeking assistance with comprehensive education and 
training services.
  We need a system that is accountable, assuring that the training 
provides leads to a meaningful, long-term employment.
  We need a system that provides consumer choice, allowing individuals, 
not the Government, to choose their education or training provider.
  And, we need a system that is driven at the State and local level, 
not from Washington, DC.
  The Workforce Investment Partnership Act that I introduced was 
approved unanimously--let me repeat, unanimously--by the Senate Labor 
and Human Resources Committee in September. It represents a belief that 
we can do better, that we can, in fact, achieve these goals.
  During the committee process, we considered the concerns of various 
groups who have a stake in this bill--elected officials at the State 
and local level, the business community, family groups, labor unions, 
education groups and others. It is my belief that this bill balances 
all the competing concerns to the best of our ability.
  Today, we are on the verge of replacing the current system of 
frustration and providing a framework for success.
  The Workforce Investment Partnership Act embodies the principles that 
I have just outlined. The programs incorporated in the legislation 
include job training, vocational education and adult education. 
Additionally, it provides strong linkages to welfare to work, the 
Wagner-Peyser Act, the Older Americans Act, Vocational Rehabilitation, 
veterans programs, Trade Adjustment Assistance, as well as other 
training-related programs.
  It offers a reborn Federal Jobs Corps program. This reborn Federal 
Jobs Corps program will linked to local communities for the first time 
in its 30-year history.
  This bill, in short, is a foundation, a road map to a much better 
system.
  Mr. President, while separate funding streams will be maintained for 
each of the activities under this bill, in recognition of their 
distinct function, States and localities will be empowered with the 
tools and the flexibility to implement real reform in order to provide 
comprehensive services to those seeking assistance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator's 5 minutes have 
expired.
  Mr. DeWINE. I ask unanimous consent to extend for an additional 15 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeWINE. However, Mr. President, there is opposition to this 
legislation, opposition that I, frankly, do not understand. For the 
most part, the opposition is driven by a lack of understanding of this 
particular piece of legislation and a fear that our schools are going 
to be turned into ``training'' facilities that force children into 
career tracks.
  This is simply not true. This is the last thing--let me repeat, the 
last thing--that this Member of the U.S. Senate would ever propose, 
would ever push, would ever write or, frankly, would ever vote for.
  Let me answer now, if I can, the most common questions that have been 
asked about this bill.
  The first question: Why is vocational education included in the bill?
  Let me try to answer that, and I will. While vocational education 
mainly serves secondary school students between the 7th and 12th 
grades, it also provides post-high school vocational services to 
individuals. Those post-high school services are linked to the training 
system. The education services provided to 7th and 12th grade students 
are not linked to the training system. Again, this legislation will 
not--will not--replace traditional education curricula with job 
training.
  The reforms that are contained in S. 1186 which affect secondary 
school students will strengthen vocational education. The students that 
voluntarily choose to participate in vocational education will receive 
a strong academic and technical education. The provisions insure that 
students have the choice, an option, to participate in vocational 
education. Participation in vocational education under our bill remains 
voluntary.
  This bill will not set kids on some kind of preordained career track. 
It just won't happen.
  The next question that has been raised is: Does S. 1186 include 
national testing?
  Absolutely not, it does not include national testing. This 
legislation does not authorize national testing. I am opposed to 
national testing, and I would not introduce legislation that authorizes 
national testing.
  The next question that has been asked is this: Does this bill, S. 
1186, increase the authority of the Federal Government over education?
  Again, the answer is no, absolutely not. S. 1186 eliminates numerous 
Federal requirements and mandatory set-asides. It gives States and 
localities the flexibility, the authority and the funding to design 
their own vocation education systems which provide academic and 
technological education to secondary and post-secondary students who 
voluntarily choose to participate.
  S. 1186 streamlines vocational education, reducing the current 20 
categorical programs to four. It provides States and localities more 
flexibility over planning, allowing the State education authority to 
coordinate post-secondary vocational education with the other programs 
linked to and coordinated with S. 1186. And, Mr. President, this bill 
eliminates the Federally required State gender equity coordinator 
position.

  Let me turn to another question that has been raised. Does S. 1186 
give the Secretary of Education authority to create national 
educational standards?
  Again, Mr. President, the answer is no. Absolutely not. This Senator 
would not support such legislation. I would not write it. I would not 
vote for it. The Secretary of Education, under this bill, is only given 
the authority to ``publish'' the performance measures outlined by the 
legislation. The Secretary of Education cannot arbitrarily mandate 
standards.
  The next question that has been asked: Does S. 1186 expand the School 
to Work Act?
  No. Absolutely not. School to Work is a completely separate program. 
Let me again state it. School to Work is a completely separate program 
that is in no way part of or linked to S. 1186. Section 316(d)(2) 
clearly states that ``funds . . . shall not be used to carry out 
activities that duplicate federally funded activities available to 
youth.'' Mr. President, this provision prohibits States and localities 
from using S. 1186 funding in any way to expand School to Work.
  Let me turn now, if I could, Mr. President, to another question that 
has been asked. Does S. 1186 force students to choose a career path or 
major?
  Again, Mr. President, the answer is absolutely not. I would not be on 
the floor arguing in favor of this legislation. I would not have spent 
the last several years working on it, or any piece of legislation that 
would do this. Section 103 of this bill clearly states that ``No funds 
shall be used--(1) to require any secondary school student to choose or 
pursue a specific career path or major; and (2) to mandate that any 
individual participate in a vocational education program, including a 
vocational education program that requires

[[Page S2292]]

the attainment of a federally funded skill level or standard.''
  Mr. President, I find the idea of forcing students or encouraging 
students into a career path early in their educational life to be very 
wrongheaded. I think it is wrong. I think children should have the 
opportunity to develop, to think about what they want to do. How many 
of us, even when we got out of high school, knew exactly what we were 
going to do? Where we were going to go or what our major was going to 
be? Or, how we were going to spend our life?
  So the idea that we track children, I find abhorrent, I find to be 
wrong. This bill does not do that.
  Let me turn to another question that has been asked. Will 
participation in summer or year-round activities have a negative impact 
on a young person's participation in school?
  Again, the answer is no. S. 1186 does not remove students from the 
traditional classroom. Section 316(d)(3) of this bill clearly states--
``No funds . . . shall be used to provide an activity for youth . . . 
if participation in the activity would interfere with or replace the 
regular academic requirements of the youth.''
  Let me turn to another question. Does S. 1186 transform elementary or 
secondary schools into job training centers?
  No is the answer. Absolutely not. While S. 1186 does establish one-
stop customer service centers as the local hub for adult training, 
section 311(d)(2) states that ``Elementary and secondary schools shall 
not be eligible for designation or certification as one-stop customer 
service centers . . .''
  Let me turn to another question that has been asked. How will S. 1186 
affect private, religious, or home schools?
  Mr. President, on this one the answer is very simple. It will not 
affect them at all. Section 104 states that ``Nothing in this Act shall 
be construed to permit, allow, encourage, or authorize any Federal 
control over any aspect of a private, religious, or home school . . .''
  Let me turn to another question. Does S. 1186 allow workforce boards 
to implement school curricula?
  The answer, Mr. President, is no. No, S. 1186 does not undermine the 
authority of the State education authority or local school boards. S. 
1186 does not give any authority over school curricula to workforce 
boards. In fact, section 316(d)(1) states ``No funds . . . shall be 
used to develop or implement local school system education curricula.''
  Another question, Mr. President, that has been asked is, does S. 1186 
allow workforce boards to bypass the authority of State legislatures?
  Again, the answer is no. S. 1186 does not undermine the authority of 
the State legislative bodies. Section 380 of this bill states that ``. 
. . Any funds received by a state . . . shall be subject to 
appropriation by the state legislature . . .'' This provision, I might 
point out, Mr. President, is similar to the language contained in the 
welfare law.
  Let me turn to another question. Does S. 1186 combine education and 
job training funds?
  Again, the answer is no. S. 1186 does not combine education and job 
training funds. In fact, S. 1186 retains separate funding streams for 
vocational education, adult education, adult training, and youth 
activities in recognition of their very distinct functions.
  The next question, Mr. President, I would like to address is this. 
Does S. 1186 create a national, State, and local workforce databank by 
combining the computer databanks of the Department of Education, 
Department of Labor, and the Department of Health and Human Services?
  Again, Mr. President, the answer is no. S. 1186 does not establish 
any sort of joint Federal workforce databank. However, S. 1186 does 
reform the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics employment 
service information system that is used by all unemployed Americans. 
Under S. 1186, unemployed Americans will be able to receive quality 
local data regarding job openings so they can get back to work.
  Mr. President, throughout my public career, I have advocated giving 
parents and local communities more control over the education of their 
children. This legislation does just that.
  As for training, this legislation reforms the system put in place by 
two conservative politicians. The Job Training Partnership Act was 
written by then-Senator Dan Quayle and signed into law by President 
Ronald Reagan.
  It is my belief, Mr. President, that by removing or reforming 
outdated rules and regulations, States and localities can move forward, 
transforming the current patchwork of programs into a comprehensive 
system, a comprehensive system which will better serve individuals who 
voluntarily seek assistance.
  Mr. President, just like welfare reform, job training reform rests on 
the leadership of States and localities that have shown innovation and 
initiative. S. 1186 is designed to encourage more State and more local 
innovations--moving people from welfare to work.
  Mr. President, the Workforce Investment Partnership Act offers a new 
foundation, a positive framework for success, a roadmap, if you will, 
to a better system. If we are to achieve the goals we have set--a 
stronger economy, a better trained workforce, and true and meaningful 
welfare reform--then we need to act, and we need to act now.
  That is why, Mr. President, I am asking for the support of my 
colleagues today. I am asking for your ideas, your support, and I will 
continue to push for immediate consideration of this bill by the full 
Senate.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following letters be 
printed in the Record: a letter from the National Association of 
Manufacturers, a letter from the National Association of Private 
Industry Councils, a letter from the National Association of Counties--
and I might add to that that each one of these, Mr. President, is an 
endorsement of the bill--and also a letter from the American Vocational 
Association and a letter from the State Directors of Vocational 
Technical Education.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              National Association


                                             of Manufacturers,

                                   Washington, DC, March 16, 1998.
     Hon. Mike DeWine,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator DeWine: On behalf of the National Association 
     of Manufacturers, (NAM) more than 14,000 member companies and 
     subsidiaries, and the more than 18 million people they 
     employ, we urge you to support S. 1186, the Workforce 
     Investment Partnership Act when it is brought before the full 
     Senate. This piece of legislation, which would consolidate 
     many federal job-training programs, is an important first 
     step in addressing the well documented ``skill shortage'' 
     faced by our member companies.
       Last year, the NAM commissioned Grant Thorton to conduct a 
     survey of more than 4,500 manufacturers. The survey found 
     that more than nine in ten manufacturers are encountering a 
     skill shortage in at least one job category. Moreover, over 
     40 percent cited a lack of basic technical skills among 
     workers as a serious problem. In short, the lack of qualified 
     workers, at every level, has reached a crisis point for many 
     manufacturers. The message of the Grant Thorton study is 
     clear: We must provide individuals with the skills they need 
     to succeed. There is no question that life-long training is 
     the key to American competitiveness and worker success in the 
     global economy.
       Unfortunately, the current federal job-training system is a 
     complex maze that serves neither trainees nor their 
     prospective employers well. S. 1186 would address these 
     issues by: consolidating many of the current programs and 
     providing more comprehensive services; and providing critical 
     business community involvement in statewide and local 
     partnerships; and holding training providers accountable 
     through recognized industry standards.
       The NAM strongly urges you to vote for S. 1186, a bill that 
     enjoys bipartisan support, and to reject any weakening 
     amendments. It is imperative that we adopt job-training 
     consolidation that includes business community participation 
     at all levels and meaningful performance standards.
       Our ability to compete in an increasingly sophisticated and 
     technologically advanced marketplace depends on it. Should 
     you have any questions or need further information, do not 
     hesitate to contact me or Sandy Boyd, director of employment 
     policy, at (202) 637-3133.
           Sincerely,

                                                Paul R. Huard,

                                            Senior Vice President,
     Policy & Communications.
                                                                    ____

                                           National Association of


                                    Private Industry Councils,

                                   Washington, DC, March 18, 1998.
     Hon. Mike DeWine,
     Chair, Subcommittee on Employment and Training, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the Board of Directors of 
     the National Association of Private Industry Councils 
     (NAPIC), we are writing in support of S. 1186. ``The 
     Workforce Investment Partnership Act.''

[[Page S2293]]

     Passage of this legislation will help business remain 
     competitive by giving private sector-led boards the tools 
     they need to address the skill needs of employees and the 
     training needs of job seekers.
       Among the many excellent provisions in this bill, the NAPIC 
     Board has identified four compelling reasons to support S. 
     1186.
       The legislation strengthens the private sector voice in the 
     oversight of public employment and training programs. The 
     proposed Workforce Investment Partnerships will ensure that 
     we have a market-driven public employment and training system 
     in place to meet the needs of businesses and job seekers 
     alike. The enhanced role for employers will result in better 
     linkages between job seekers and careers.
       It deregulates youth programs, offering communities more 
     options to fashion local strategies that will help young 
     people stay in school and prepare out-of-school youth for 
     careers.
       This bill provides the clear balance between state 
     authority and local control necessary for an employment and 
     training system that is both labor-market driven and 
     responsive to local and state wide goals for economic 
     development.
       New standards for accountability will guarantee that 
     programs are responsive to the skill needs of employers.
       We applaud the work that you and your fellow Senators have 
     done to craft this legislation. NAPIC looks forward to 
     working with you and your colleagues in the coming months to 
     ensure that S. 1186 moves from the Senate floor to 
     conference, final passage, and presidential signature.
           Sincerely,
     Judith Byrne Riley,
                                                            Chair.
     Robert Knight,
     President.
                                                                    ____



                             National Association of Counties,

                                   Washington, DC, March 16, 1998.
     Hon. Mike DeWine,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator DeWine: The National Association of Counties 
     (NACo), representing America's 3,100 counties in Washington, 
     DC, is pleased to support S. 1186, the Workforce Investment 
     Partnership Act of 1998. The bill, which would strengthen the 
     nation's workforce development system, will contribute 
     substantially to the quality of America's second chance 
     employment and training system.
       NACo believes that this bill will improve the types of 
     workforce services available to our constituents. We believe 
     that it will put in place a system of one-stop career centers 
     that will ensure access to a wide range of client services. 
     We also believe that it will strengthen overall 
     accountability to ensure that workforce development programs 
     meet the expectations of Congress, the Administration, 
     governors, county elected officials and clients. Finally, 
     NACo is of the opinion that S. 1186 will help ensure a highly 
     skilled workforce.
       The Workforce Investment Partnership Act effectively draws 
     upon the positive experiences of the past and of our hopes 
     for the future to ensure that this nation has the kind of 
     workforce it will need to compete in the global economy and 
     maintain our standard of living.
       We applaud the work that you and your fellow Senators have 
     done in crafting this legislation, and look forward to 
     continue working with you in the coming months to ensure that 
     S. 1186 moves from the Senate floor to conference, final 
     passage and presidential signature.
           Sincerely,
                                   Randy Johnson, President, NACo,
     Hennepin County Commissioner.
                                                                    ____



                              American Vocational Association,

                                   Alexandria, VA, March 17, 1998.
     Hon. Spencer Abraham,
     Senate Dirksen Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the American Vocational 
     Association (AVA) and the 38,000 vocational-technical 
     educators that we represent nationwide, I urge you to vote in 
     favor of S. 1186, the Workforce Investment Partnership Act, 
     which may be considered in the full Senate this week.
       The Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee has worked 
     hard to address the concerns raised by vocational-technical 
     educators about this legislation last fall. We believe the 
     managers' amendment that will be offered effectively 
     addresses the core issues we raised. As we understand it, the 
     managers' amendment includes:
       Assurances that funding appropriated for vocational-
     technical education programs will be directed to school-based 
     programs and cannot be diverted to other areas.
       Assurances that education governance authorities at the 
     state and local levels will continue to have jurisdiction 
     over vocational-technical education programs.
       A strong focus on professional development for vocational-
     technical education teachers, administrators, and counselors.
       Increased emphasis on technology.
       Assurances that unified planning will adhere to the 
     requirements of the vocational-technical education 
     provisions.
       Effective support for state administration and leadership.
       In addition to encouraging the Senate to pass this 
     important legislation, we urge the Senate to accept the House 
     structure of a separate bill for vocational-technical 
     education, apart from job training, when S. 1186 goes to 
     conference with the House version. Further, we will provide 
     detailed comments on our conference priorities, including 
     additional changes that we would like to see to some of the 
     Senate language, as the bill moves towards conference.
       We also wish to commend Chairmen Jeffords and DeWine and 
     Senators Kennedy and Wellstone for their leadership and 
     bipartisanship in developing and moving this legislation. If 
     you have any questions about our bipartisanship on S. 1186 or 
     on any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact Nancy 
     O'Brien, AVA's assistant executive director for government 
     relations, or me at (703) 683-3111.
       Thank you for your attention to this important issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bret Lovejoy,
     Executive Director.
                                                                    ____

                                                  State Directors,


                               Vocational Technical Education,

                                   Washington, DC, March 18, 1998.
       Dear Senator: The National Association of State Directors 
     of Vocational Technical Education Consortium (NASDVTEc) 
     represents the state and territory leaders responsible for 
     the nation's vocational technical education system. On 
     NASDVTEc's behalf, I write to share our support for the 
     Senate's efforts to enact legislation that authorizes a 
     federal investment in vocational technical education. S. 
     1186, the Workforce Investment Partnership Act of 1998, holds 
     much potential for creating expanded and improved 
     opportunities for our nation's students by providing access 
     to quality vocational technical education. We urge you to 
     support S. 1186, the Workforce Investment Partnership Act of 
     1998.
       NASDVTEc is very supportive of many of S. 1186's features 
     including: a commitment to a strong state role; adequate 
     state-level resources to effect change; assurances that funds 
     appropriated for vocational technical education can be used 
     only for vocational technical education activities; and a 
     strong focus on technology, accountability and achieving high 
     levels of academic and vocational proficiency.
       As we understand it, the manager's amendment will provide 
     the opportunity for greater coordination among programs while 
     assuring that vocational technical education continues to be 
     planned for and administered by education officials, even 
     under a unified plan. While it is our preference that 
     separate legislation be enacted for vocational technical 
     education, we appreciate the additional flexibility provided 
     and the assurance that S. 1186 will build on and strengthen 
     vocational technical education programs and activities that 
     have proven successful.
       We wish to commend Chairman Jeffords, Senators DeWine, 
     Kennedy and Wellstone for their bipartisan efforts to bring 
     forward this very important piece of legislation. Thank you 
     for your support of vocational technical education and for 
     your consideration of our views. Please do not hesitate to 
     contact me at 202/737-0303 if NASDVTEc can be of assistance 
     during your consideration of S. 1186.
           Sincerely,
                                                Kimberly A. Green,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may 
proceed for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Cochran pertaining to the introduction of S. 1806 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')

                          ____________________